Heretic TOC is delighted to present a guest blog today by Edmund, author of the BL novel Alexander’s Choice, set at Eton College and somewhat improbably hailed in the Daily Mail as “the Etonian version of Fifty Shades Of Grey”. The book was being “feverishly read by as many Etonians, past and present, as can get their hands on it”, enthused columnist Richard Kay. And who better to write about hot lust and love between man and boy at Britain’s fabled hothouse for future leaders than an Old Etonian such as Edmund himself? More relevant today, though, as will be seen below, is another observation I once made about the author: “I think he must … be some sort of time traveller, a former citizen of ancient Athens, judging by his amazing evocation of pederasty’s golden age and the ideals of pedogogic eros and mentorship.” Edmund now has his own fledgling website, hatched only a few days ago and in a very preliminary stage of development, called Greek Love Through the Ages.
On the lowering of the usual age at which boys have attracted men
A few years ago, when I wrote a novel about a love affair between a fourteen-year-old boy and a young schoolmaster, I was already aware from long study of ancient Greece, the best-known pederastic culture ever, that my protagonist was a little below the average age of boys to which Greek men were attracted. However, it was only through extensive correspondence resulting from my novel that it was first impressed on me that most men today identifying themselves as boy-lovers are more attracted to younger boys. Put together, this suggested a serious discrepancy between Greek and modern preferences. This both surprised me and struck me as having important implications, so I have done some investigation which I am now reporting.
I firmly believe that attraction to boys is a natural impulse which has survived millions of years of evolution because of its benefits to the species. The evidence for this was best summed up by Bruce Rind in his Hebephilia as a Mental Disorder? (2011), showing that pederasty has been so widely practised not only throughout recorded human history, but also by other primates, as to indicate that it is an “evolutionary heritage” for which “most mature males have a capacity” (pp. 20-1). Moreover, one indication of its evolutionary function is “that mature male erotic interest in boys, when expressed, is generally coordinated with the ages at which mentorship and enculturation are most useful and efficiently effected, from peripubescence through mid-adolescence” (p. 24). But how can it be thus co-ordinated if boy-lovers today are drawn to significantly younger boys than were the Greeks?
Much the strongest evidence for the age of boys with whom men chose to become sexually involved in any era comes from Renaissance Florence, thanks to Michael Rocke’s exhaustive study of the copious records of the Office of the Night Watch set up to police pederasty there. In Statistical Table B.2 of his book Forbidden Friendships (1996), he gives the “ages of partners in the passive role, 1478-1502” in 475 cases recorded by the Office of the Night. They range from six to twenty-six, but 90% (428) were aged twelve to nineteen, while only 16 were under twelve, and only 31 were aged twenty or more. At 82 cases, sixteen was the peak as well as the mean. A smaller sample of 58 passive partners whose ages were found in a tax record of 1480 yielded a mean age of fifteen.
The best evidence for the youngest age at which Greek boys receive amorous attention is poem 205 of Straton of Sardis’s Musa Puerilis:
My neighbour’s quite tender young boy provokes me not a little, and laughs in no novice manner to show me that he is willing. But he is not more than twelve years old. Now the unripe grapes are unguarded; when he ripens there will be watchmen and stakes.
This implies that at twelve or a little less, a boy had not quite reached the expected age. In his poem 4, Straton says he delights in the prime of a boy in his twelfth year (ie. aged eleven). I believe this is the sole reference in Greek literature to boys under twelve being sexually attractive. Plutarch, in his Life of Lycurgus, says that Spartan boys “were introduced to the society of lovers” at twelve.
Straton considered seventeen beyond bounds and there are copious references in Greek literature to boys losing their desirability with the appearance of body and facial hair. However, an eighteen year-old could still be referred to as a pais (boy) in an amorous context and fully-grown but still unbearded youths are commonly depicted as men’s beloveds on vases. Aristotle says beard growth occurs some time before twenty-one (History of Animals 582a).
According to P. G. Schalow, translator into English of Ihara Saikaku’s The Great Mirror of Male Love, the most important source of our knowledge of the pederasty ubiquitous in Japan for a thousand years, the age of the passive partners usually corresponded to the age of the wakashu (adolescent boy), defined by hair-shaving ceremonies performed at the ages of eleven or twelve and eighteen or nineteen.
Khaled El-Rouayheb in his Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World 1500-1800, also describing a society where men’s attraction to boys was taken for granted, quotes the opinions of numerous primary sources on the age of boys’ attractiveness. He concludes that the range was wide, at seven or eight to twenty, but “that the boy’s attractiveness was usually supposed to peak around halfway through, at fourteen or fifteen.”
To determine the ages to which today’s self-identified boy-lovers are attracted, I consulted two of their forums. In a poll held this year on one called boymoment, seventy-six voters replied to the question “What ages do you like?” 8% opted for under eight, 81% for eight to fifteen and 10% for 16+. The ages brackets of 10-11 and 12-13 were most popular and virtually equal choices, confirming what an old hand there told me that the many polls of this sort conducted in the past had consistently shown 11-12 as the most preferred age, in other words towards the end of Tanner stage two of pubescence. A poll of 88 voters on a forum called boylandonline ongoing since 2011 showed 10, 11 and 12 as the roughly equal most popular choices.
Based on the foregoing, I think it is fair to postulate twelve to nineteen as the typical age range of boys to whom men were attracted historically, with fifteen the likely average and peak, and eight to fifteen as the age most online boy-lovers are now attracted to, with eleven to twelve the average and most liked. How can one explain the discrepancy of three or four years? Here follow three hypotheses in order of importance.
ONE:
Watch a film with boys from the 1930s and look up the actors’ ages. Those who look like today’s 13-year-olds with voices that have not begun to break are more likely to have been 16. The handsome Jürgen Ohlsen in the Nazi propaganda film Hitlerjunge Quex (1933) is a good example of one presumably chosen partly for his pederastic appeal, since the Nazis were not averse to exploiting such imagery. It has happened again and again that the 14-year-old I thought I was looking at in a Victorian photo turned out to be 18. Necessarily subjective judgements of this sort are useful as expressions of visual response to a substantial drop in the age of puberty that has been going on for well over a century. Abundant but complicated evidence and supporting anecdotes have already been discussed in Tom’s blog of 25 September 2014, so I shall only point out the one I think best for accurate comparison over a very long period. The voices of Bach’s choirboys in the years 1727-48 began breaking on average at 17.25, whereas those of London schoolboys in 1959 did so at 13.25 (studies cited in Politics and Life Sciences 20 (1) p.48).
This has far-reaching implications. For example, the debate on whether historical individuals like Oscar Wilde were pederasts or gay should end. Seen in the light of the age at which Victorians started looking like men, Wilde, with his lovers’ age range of 14-21, was unambiguously a pederast in the Greek tradition he claimed.
TWO:
Sexuality is heavily influenced by culture. I cannot see how else it is possible to explain the wild variations in degree of sexual interest in boys implied by cultures like Renaissance Florence where Rocke found (p. 115) “at least two of every three men were incriminated” over it despite religious denunciation, state persecution and the provision of women in brothels to lure them away. The antagonism of the Florentine state failed mostly because the culture of pederasty was too strong. By contrast, fierce opposition to sex between children and anyone significantly older pervades the entire culture of the Anglophone countries and, to some extent, most countries. It follows then that in a culture such as today’s that is deeply antagonistic to pederasty only those innately least capable of attraction to adults will become boy-lovers, the others either shunning boys in favour of adults or never awakening to their latent capacity for attraction to boys. Tom has said in one of his blogs that hebephiles are far more likely than paedophiles to be capable of attraction to adults. This is bound to cause under-representation of potential hebephiles in boy-love forums.
Also, in several populous countries the age of consent is fourteen, and in most it is no more than sixteen, which must have the effect of disincentivising some men attracted most to boys of fourteen or more from participating in forums defined by longings for the forbidden.
THREE
Much of what is considered sex today was ignored as insignificant by pre-modern societies. Greek men sought intercrural or anal intercourse with boys, and not, as far we know, to be masturbated. Japanese men sought anal intercourse. Masturbation only interested Florence’s Office of the Night if done with a view to seducing a boy into being sodomized. If, as has been frequently asserted on this blog, paedophiles are much less inclined to penetrative acts than hebephiles, then more of them will have passed under the radar in pre-modern societies, while being represented in the boy-forum statistics. However, this is only a minor point. Excluding masturbation may have raised the mean age of the boys in the Florentine records, but cannot explain why Florentine men preferred to sodomise 15-16 year-olds rather than 14-year-olds.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I suggest it has been shown that if one were to allow that the age of attraction expressed by online boy-lovers has been skewed a little downwards by my second and third hypotheses, men today can be said to be responsive to roughly the same state of physical development in boys that they always have been, in harmony with their evolutionary heritage. That the age at which this development is attained has gone down is at the heart of the modern boy-lover’s unhappy predicament.
Abimegender: a gender that is profound, deep, and infinite; meant to resemble when one mirror is reflecting into another mirror creating an infinite paradox
Adamasgender: a gender which refuses to be categorized
Aerogender: a gender that is influenced by your surroundings
Aesthetigender: a gender that is derived from an aesthetic; also known as videgender
Affectugender: a gender that is affected by mood swings
Agender: the feeling of no gender/absence of gender or neutral gender
Agenderflux: being mostly agender except having small shifts towards other genders making them demigenders (because of the constancy of being agender)
Alexigender: a gender that is fluid between more than one gender but the individual cannot tell what those genders are
Aliusgender: a gender which is removed from common gender descriptors and guidelines
Amaregender: a gender that changes depending on who you’re in love with
Ambigender: defined as having the feeling of two genders simultaneously without fluctuation; meant to reflect the concept of being ambidextrous, only with gender
Ambonec: identifying as both man and woman, yet neither at the same time
Amicagender: a gender that changes depending on which friend you’re with
Androgyne: sometimes used in the case of “androgynous presentation”; describes the feeling of being a mix of both masculine and feminine (and sometimes neutral) gender qualities
Anesigender: feeling like a certain gender yet being more comfortable identifying with another
Angenital: a desire to be without primary sexual characteristics, without necessarily being genderless; one may be both angenital and identify as any other gender alongside
Anogender: a gender that fades in and out but always comes back to the same feeling
Anongender: a gender that is unknown to both yourself and others
Antegender: a protean gender which has the potential to be anything, but is formless and motionless, and therefore, does not manifest as any particular gender
Anxiegender: a gender that is affected by anxiety
Apagender: a feeling of apathy towards ones gender which leads to them not looking any further into it
Apconsugender: a gender where you know what it isn’t, but not what it is; the gender is hiding itself from you
Astergender: a gender that feels bright and celestial
Astralgender: a gender that feels connected to space
(POSSIBLE TRIGGER WARNING) Autigender: a gender that can only be understood in the context of being autistic
Autogender: a gender experience that is deeply personal to oneself
Axigender: when a person experiences two genders that sit on opposite ends of an axis; one being agender and the other being any other gender; these genders are experienced one at a time with no overlapping and with very short transition time.
Bigender: the feeling of having two genders either at the same time or separately; usually used to describe feeling “traditionally male” and “traditionally female”, but does not have to
Biogender: a gender that feels connected to nature in some way
Blurgender: the feeling of having more than one gender that are somehow blurred together to the point of not being able to distinguish or identify individual genders; synonymous with genderfuzz
Boyflux: when one feels mostly or all male most of the time but experience fluctuating intensity of male identity
Burstgender: and gender that comes in intense bursts of feeling and quickly fades back to the original state
Caelgender: a gender which shares qualities with outer space or has the aesthetic of space, stars, nebulas, etc.
Cassgender: the feeling of gender is unimportant to you
Cassflux: when the level of indifference towards your gender fluctuates
Cavusgender: for people with depression; when you feel one gender when not depressed and another when depressed
Cendgender: when your gender changes between one and its opposite
Ceterofluid: when you are ceterogender and your feelings fluctuate between masculine, feminine, and neutral
Ceterogender: a nonbinary gender with specific masculine, feminine, or neutral feelings
Cisgender: the feeling of being the gender you were assigned at birth, all the time (assigned (fe)male/feeling (fe)male)
Cloudgender: a gender that cannot be fully realized or seen clearly due to depersonalization/derealization disorder
Collgender: the feeling of having too many genders simultaneously to describe each one
Colorgender: a gender associated with one or more colors and the feelings, hues, emotions, and/or objects associated with that color; may be used like pinkgender, bluegender, yellowgender
Commogender: when you know you aren’t cisgender, but you settled with your assigned gender for the time being
Condigender: a gender that is only felt during certain circumstances
Deliciagender: from the Latin word delicia meaning “favorite”, meaning the feeling of having more than one simultaneous gender yet preferring one that fits better
Demifluid: the feeling your gender being fluid throughout all the demigenders; the feeling of having multiple genders, some static and some fluid
Demiflux: the feeling of having multiple genders, some static and some fluctuating
Demigender: a gender that is partially one gender and partially another
Domgender: having more than one gender yet one being more dominant than the others
Demi-vapor (term coined by @cotton-blossom-jellyfish): Continuously drifting to other genders, feeling spiritually transcendental when doing so while having a clear -slightly blurred- inner visual of your genders, transitions, and positive emotions. Tied to Demi-Smoke.
Demi-smoke (term coined by @cotton-blossom-jellyfish): A transcendental, spiritual gender roughly drifting to other genders that are unable to be foreseen and understood, shrouded in darkness within your inner visual. Elevating through mystery. Caused by a lack of inner interpretation and dark emotional states. Tied to Demi-Vapor.
Duragender: from the Latin word dura meaning “long-lasting”, meaning a subcategory of multigender in which one gender is more identifiable, long lasting, and prominent than the other genders
Egogender: a gender that is so personal to your experience that it can only be described as “you”
Epicene: sometimes used synonymously with the adjective “androgynous”; the feeling either having or not displaying characteristics of both or either binary gender; sometimes used to describe feminine male identifying individuals
Espigender: a gender that is related to being a spirit or exists on a higher or extradimensional plane
Exgender: the outright refusal to accept or identify in, on, or around the gender spectrum
Existigender: a gender that only exists or feels present when thought about or when a conscious effort is made to notice it
Femfluid: having fluctuating or fluid gender feelings that are limited to feminine genders
Femgender: a nonbinary gender which is feminine in nature
Fluidflux: the feeling of being fluid between two or more genders that also fluctuate in intensity; a combination of genderfluid and genderflux
Gemigender: having two opposite genders that work together, being fluid and flux together
Genderblank: a gender that can only be described as a blank space; when gender is called into question, all that comes to mind is a blank space
Genderflow: a gender that is fluid between infinite feelings
Genderfluid: the feeling of fluidity within your gender identity; feeling a different gender as time passes or as situations change; not restricted to any number of genders
Genderflux: the feeling of your gender fluctuating in intensity; like genderfluid but between one gender and agender
Genderfuzz: coined by lolzmelmel; the feeling of having more than one gender that are somehow blurred together to the point of not being able to distinguish or identify individual genders; synonymous with blurgender
Gender Neutral: the feeling of having a neutral gender, whether somewhere in between masculine and feminine or a third gender that is separate from the binary; often paired with neutrois
Genderpunk: a gender identity that actively resists gender norms
Genderqueer: originally used as an umbrella term for nonbinary individuals; may be used as an identity; describes a nonbinary gender regardless of whether the individual is masculine or feminine leaning
Genderwitched: a gender in which one is intrigued or entranced by the idea of a particular gender, but is not certain that they are actually feeling it
Girlflux: when one feels mostly or all female most of the time but experiences fluctuating intensities of female identity
Glassgender: a gender that is very sensitive and fragile
Glimragender: a faintly shining, wavering gender
Greygender: having a gender that is mostly outside of the binary but is weak and can barely be felt
Gyragender: having multiple genders but understanding none of them
Healgender: a gender that once realized, brings lots of peace, clarity, security, and creativity to the individual’s mind
Heliogender: a gender that is warm and burning
Hemigender: a gender that is half one gender and half something else; one or both halves may be identifiable genders
Horogender: a gender that changes over time with the core feeling remaining the same
Hydrogender: a gender which shares qualities with water
Imperigender: a fluid gender that can be controlled by the individual
Intergender: the feeling of gender falling somewhere on the spectrum between masculine and feminine; note:[/b] do not confuse with intersex
Juxera: a feminine gender similar to girl, but on a separate plane and off to itself
Libragender: a gender that feels agender but has a strong connection to another gender
Magigender: a gender that is mostly gender and the rest is something else
Mascfluid: A gender that is fluid in nature, and restricted only to masculine genders
Mascgender: a non-binary gender which is masculine in nature.
Maverique: taken from the word maverick; the feeling of having a gender that is separate from masculinity, femininity, and neutrality, but is not agender; a form of third gender
Mirrorgender: a gender that changes to fit the people around you
Molligender: a gender that is soft, subtle, and subdued
Multigender: the feeling of having more than one simultaneous or fluctuating gender; simultaneous with multigenderand omnigender
Nanogender: feeling a small part of one gender with the rest being something else
Neutrois: the feeling of having a neutral gender; sometimes a lack of gender that leads to feeling neutral
Nonbinary: originally an umbrella term for any gender outside the binary of cisgenders; may be used as an individual identity; occasionally used alongside of genderqueer
Omnigender: the feeling of having more than one simultaneous or fluctuating gender; simultaneous with multigenderand polygender
Oneirogender: coined by anonymous, “being agender, but having recurring fantasies or daydreams of being a certain gender without the dysphoria or desire to actually be that gender day-to-day”
Pangender: the feeling of having every gender; this is considered problematic by some communities and thus has been used as the concept of relating in some way to all genders as opposed to containing every gender identity; only applies to genders within one’s own culture
Paragender: the feeling very near one gender and partially something else which keeps you from feeling fully that gender
Perigender: identifying with a gender but not as a gender
Polygender: the feeling of having more than one simultaneous or fluctuating gender; simultaneous with multigenderand omnigender
Proxvir: a masculine gender similar to boy, but on a separate plane and off to itself
Quoigender: feeling as if the concept of gender is inapplicable or nonsensical to one’s self
Subgender: mostly agender with a bit of another gender
Surgender: having a gender that is 100% one gender but with more of another gender added on top of that
Systemgender: a gender that is the sum of all the genders within a multiple or median system
Tragender: a gender that stretches over the whole spectrum of genders
Transgender: any gender identity that transcends or does not align with your assigned gender or society’s idea of gender; the feeling of being any gender that does not match your assigned gender
Trigender: the feeling of having three simultaneous or fluctuating genders
Vapogender: a gender that sort of feels like smoke; can be seen on a shallow level but once you go deeper, it disappears and you are left with no gender and only tiny wisps of what you thought it was
Venngender: when two genders overlap creating an entirely new gender; like a venn diagram
Verangender: a gender that seems to shift/change the moment it is identified
Vibragender: a gender that is usually one stable gender but will occasionally changes or fluctuate before stabilizing again
Vocigender: a gender that is weak or hollow
This misses the most interesting one: clovergender!
I like it :).
May I add multigenerational genderfluxation. When ones identity of age and gender can transition depending on mood.
So…we can become 12 year old boys and girls and join the scouts. Red faced Rebels without a clue SJW’s and Feminists can choke on that. From, God forbid White males.
Ironically, they fuck up a child’s growth far more than most “Pedophiles”.
southpole@mail2tor.com
I want to thank anyone who have responded to my call for support and advice concerning the recent Skeptiko debate.
In fact, my opponent’s rhetorical appeal to “cognitive development” is based on several severe mistakes in reasoning:
– he presupposes, without any proof being presented, that children “were” manipulated and betrayed;
– he conveniently forgets that a very intense (and oftentimes compulsory) cultural indoctrination happens in the same time when cognitive development happens, and there is no immediate reason to prefer the former to the latter as a cause of negative (r)evaluation of child-adult sex experiences.
And, if we look at the available evidence more closely, we can notice that:
– people who live (or lived) outside of modern Western(ised) cultures do not automatically indentify child-adult sex as intrinsically negative – and they were not devoid of cognitive development;
– there are many cases even in our modern Western(ised) culture when former children, being adults in the moment of communication, evaluated their memories of participation in sexual relation with adults as positive (both pleasant and consensual);
– there are enough evidence, and clear understanding, of powerful iatrogenic and sociogenic influences leading to negative (r)evaluation of child-adult sex memories (or, as Satanic Panic debacle demonstrated, even the creation of such memories there no actual sexual contact had ever happened in the first place).
But, you have already noticed all of these mistakes, haven’t you? 🙂
For now, I will turn to other subjects – flames of passion must be doused before I raise the topic again. Skeptiko forum is my favourite Internet place (and my first place of Web activity), I value membership there greatly and thus will not risk pushing a highly unpopular cause hard enough to be reported to moderators and – possibly – banished. For now, nothing like that happened (can you imagine such lenience on other Web forums?), since the freedom of speech and discussion on Skeptiko is unprecedented, but being cautious will not harm.
I will certainly raise the debate again once I finish my child liberation essay. Now I’m thinking about it in detail, almost started actual writing. I will do it – I ought to do, since I promised, and I try my best to keep my promises. But it will take no less than a month, since it’s the very hardest undertaking I ever performed.
And someone has to spread the message, hasn’t one?
As I have said before, these so-called “arguments” are not rational, as they mainly stem from these people’s feelings of disgust associated with pedophilia that get them to find explanations to reject something that they, unconsciously, have already decided to reject (i.e. a “cognitive distortion”).
Simply look at the way these “arguments” have changed over time. 150 years ago, the common opinion was that children are not interested in sex. When it was shown that it is not that way, then children were not interested in sex with adults. When even this claim was proved to be false, at least in a non-insignificant number of cases, then the reason was that they may be interested, but they get harmed. And that’s why, when a sexual relationship between a child and an adult is discovered and the child tells that he/she liked it very much and has no problem with it, then the argument is that he/she is still too young, and the traumas will materialize later in life. Yet, when an adult steps forward and says that he/she actually had sexual encounters with an adult as a child without having been harmed at all, then it is argued that this adult has “identified with the aggressor” or has the “Stockholm syndrome”.
In other words, discussing with these people is a waste of time. If every single reason to reject pedophilia were proved to be incorrect, and if all the adults who have had a sexual relationship with a pedophile in their childhood came forward and told that they have not been not harmed at all, then you should rest assured that these people would invent new reasons to claim that adult-child sex is wrong and should be condemned.
Hi Tom,
There is a little debate going on in the comment section of one of Cart O’Graph’s videos. The poster is xSlappykinkaidx. What do you make of it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaOc4EnQBiw&lc=z130ih45hq3bf5ik323yh35wbw2wefmbk04.1497824843150040
Sorry, can’t check this out immediately. AnyOne who can?
Christ, that man’s thought process is even more disheveled than a schizophrenic, and he deleted his reference sheet on PasteBin. I would honestly be surprised if he isn’t autistic or something.
I’d serious recommend not wasting your time on that nonsense.
(S)he goes onto a whole essay on human biology as some sort of justification that ‘they can’t consent’…” Then we get into the hormonal aspects, not just testosterone & estrogen, but also dopamine & other hormonal chemicals that play a significant role. These all play a role in sexual desire & sexual arousal. & since all these parts of the brain are under-developed, ESPECIALLY in prepubescent children, it can be damaging to them”
If I deadlift 250kg in the gym, My brain will produce testosterone, dopamine & other hormonal chemicals. If I go for a jog, similar physical changes happen.
Why would it be damaging to me unless I slip a disc on the deadlift, or fuck my knee up jogging.
Like I said, pay no heed to that autist, it’ll just bore you to no end. Pseudo-intellectuals like that prowl the comment section of pretty much each and every video dealing with pedophilia I’ve come across on YouTube or any other social media platform.
We need to get Cart ‘O Graph making videos again! Also, what happened to his video where he analyzed and responded to the points made by Ethan Edwards in one of his blog posts? That was one of Cart’s best vids, but now it appears to be down. And I wouldn’t think Cart would take it down himself.
Has anyone heard anything about the famous YouTuber Austin Jones? He was just arrested for CP. He is getting massive amounts of hate right now. It’s really sickening because he could get a maximum of 30 years in prison for doing a lot of nothing. These laws truly are draconian.
Well, It’s not draconian if you are not a leftist who speaks about murderers and thieves deserve apologies for being locked up and deserve second chances. People with authoritarian minds (who are all but ‘true’ left liberals and libertarians) believe that all criminals deserve the greatest punishment possible, especially ‘perverts who like childs’.
But girls were 14 and 15 years old, that is to say that it is something that 99% of men would like. But have you ever seen that guy support that in any of their videos? Is there any man who even admits that he likes a 17 years old? A youtuber that I do not remember the name, have a relationship with a girl since she was 17 and of course they had to keep it secret (even if was totally legal) Although later they accepted it publicly and that was just ‘ephebophilia’ not pedophilia, and then you do guess what happened? There were hate sites saying that up to 18 are children and it is pedophilia and he a pervert, period.
So did you read my comment that in Sparta was only allowed to marry women over 18 (and even was ‘better’ with more than 20)? No man ever minded that abobination. Before in Germany there were magazines where pornography of 16-year-old girls was legal (was legal for some years) and the men who read it seemed ok that it was prohibited the same with 15 years old and put in jail total sane men for that, just like today with those of under 18 or the local idiocy.
So that I question: If the majority of people are so despicable, why do they deserve rights and freedom? Or is it a sign of their inferiority and our duty (as a superior people) to subjugate andd ‘pacificate’ them? Who says that with more values of tolerance and freedom there will be no more persecutions or even that our one would end?
I think Humans forever going to oppress and persecute everything that is not of their own ‘species’, a example: heterosexuals stopped persecuting homosexuals ONLY when they were integrated in their ‘species’ as ‘normal people who only date consenting adults like heterosexuals’. We cannot. We are the eternal Jew in Nazi Germany, and that is why they will never be our friends. 30 years of imprisonment and even our species not AWAKE!
We also had topless models like Samantha Fox all over the Newspapers back in the 1980s. Now since the sexual offences act 2003, They would be classed as CP or to use the dominant platitude, ‘horrific abuse images’. Some people do mention this when criticising CP laws, But that’s as far as most will go; Unless your Mr Oldfield, Then again, doubt they’d invite him on Newsnight again.
Today is the day against pedophilia or something like that? I see articles and advertises against, not only the ‘abuse’ story news of all days, there was an article teaching parents to ‘protect’ their minor children from sex predators, ok probably not innusual, but I was even just looking at a news archive site about the coronation of bokassa and I get a ad about against child marriage, instead of the stupid usual ad of a clothes shop, something that I had NEVER seen before in life. Maybe it’s something about the day against violence against women or something? I saw many feminist things today too.
The ad basically invited to make a ‘gesture’ against child marriage, which was a ‘being’ denominated ‘female peripubescent child of the human species’ (I refuse to give that ‘being’ a status of equal human being) doing a ‘finger’ probably aimed to ‘pederasts’, that is us.
So you know? I was in a vegetarian / vegan forum reading, well, about vegetarianism and veganism, and in one post is about “zoophilia” “bestiality”, and I assure you it was literally as if you read a text against pedophilia, literally you would only have change the words, all full of articles with stupidities that there is an industry of animal sexual abuse !! (there was even “zoophile tourism” and animal prostitution !!!), all the answers were without the least critical attitude “are sick” and “they destroy their body with penetrations” and other nonsense that spit usually against us, there were also posters with faces of puppies with slogans like”stop animal molestation “, even petitions in change.org to ban sex with animals (even Anonymous make campaing).
In summary before the legislation against zoophilia in some European countries all newspapers were constantly talking about an alleged “animal sexual abuse industry” and “animal prostitution” where even grooming dogs!!!!, as it is harmful to animals and humans (according to “experts” sex with animals increases the possibility of tumors in the penis hehe), and of course all animal protection associations calling something positive to imprison someone for 7 years for doing something sexual with another species, according to them is a “step forward”.
Now it changes zoofilia by pedophilia, and animal by child, or even by young woman or underage girl, you see that it is the same text, literally does not change anything.
In case you think that exploiting an animal or eating its corpse is natural and you are not in that world, veganism is today a most radical feminist front, after the brutal infiltration they have done since its first inception, almost to a point Where it is impossible to separate them, in fact if something has of particular veganism (at diference of simple vegetarianism) is that it is mainly followed by women and SJW-type left-wingers, which makes a crop very prosperous for the myth of the sexual abuse and “diference is abuse”, only changes ‘child’ or ‘young woman/underage girl’ to ‘animal’.. And you have the instruction manual of sexual hysteria. Needless to say, they at same are time fanatical advocates of LGTB and sexual female liberation.
The discussion of the intergenerational sexuality on Skeptiko with my participation has resurfaced. I mentioned the topic again when the transsexual children became the center of the debate:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/jay-dyer-what%E2%80%99s-the-endgame-for-atheists-352.3861/page-8#post-115206
I had reintroduced the topic here:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/jay-dyer-what%E2%80%99s-the-endgame-for-atheists-352.3861/page-9#post-115236
You may read for yourself the predictably negative yet plasantly polite responses. The last one was this:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/jay-dyer-what%E2%80%99s-the-endgame-for-atheists-352.3861/page-12#post-115394
It contained these words (quote between lines):
____________________________
As for the supposed evidence that children aren’t harmed by sexual relationships until “society tells them it’s wrong”. NO. This is NOT TRUE. What I see referenced are various works by researchers and psychologists themselves. However, often the conclusions of these studies are misinterpreted by pedophile advocacy groups. What they miss (likely intentionally) is that what happens when abuse victims mature and gain the cognitive ability to fully understand and assess the situation they were in, they do suffer. They understand that they were manipulated and taken advantage of; that they trusted these individuals and were betrayed by them. Many often suffer from PTSD and part of their therapy is coming to terms with what happened to them, so that they can process the experience with an adult mind and alleviate their suffering.
___________________________
Well, I think instead of “adult mind”, many people rather possess adult prejudice, forcibly pushed into their minds for years by therapists, lawyers, family, media etc.
And some of them escaped this indoctrination altogether, and their memories are as positive and happy as they always were.
Anyway, now I will be busy for long with the writing of my general child liberation essay, which I once promised by postponed being busy with many other tasks (and being a bit afraid to move even further on this topic outside of pro-paedo / pro-child-lib Web space):
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/jay-dyer-what%E2%80%99s-the-endgame-for-atheists-352.3861/page-10#post-115276
So, may I ask you for advice – what would you respond to the statements above? Any help would be appreciated!
>What they miss (likely intentionally) is that what happens when abuse victims mature and gain the cognitive ability to fully understand and assess the situation they were in, they do suffer.
But we don’t miss this, do we? A number of us have written about the iatrogenic harm brought about by our culture’s negativity. See for instance Dave Riegel’s guest blog here at HTOC: https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/the-missing-mechanism-of-harm/
As for characterisations such as “taken advantage of” and betrayed”, it is precisely this misplaced, culturally-induced narrative that is at the heart of iatrogenic harm. This negative narrative is simply a story, which may or may not be true, depending on the quality of the friendship and love that the grown-up had for the child. In a good relationship, it will not have been true at all. But such relationships, as described in the books by Titus Rivas and Marshall Burns, are systematically censored out of existence.
Strongly agree on both points. Regarding the first, what Explorer’s fellow-debater doesn’t get is that (s)he is using the terms ‘mature’ and ‘gain the cognitive ability to fully understand and assess the situation they were in’ in a culturally loaded way.
In my part of the world, “cognitive abilities” are required in order to solve differential equations, while enjoying sex mainly requires lust and well-functioning genitalia – not the other way around…
Yes, and what Explorer’s debater is also doing is, yet again, talking with the conceit that it’s somehow an intrinsic given that the younger person was “manipulated” and had their “trust betrayed.” This is a very ingrained prejudice in the minds of contemporary adults, who refuse to see that a combination of iatrogenic and sociogenic harm–the former often initiated by medical professionals who “treated” them; the latter most often caused by laypeople constantly telling them how they should feel about the contact if their actual feelings do not coincide with the narrative. The “adult minds” of these formerly loved kids only typically become symptomatic and develop PTSD as a result of a reconceptualization caused by these iatrogenic and sociogenic factors, yet typical anti-choicers often refuse to acknowledge the part all the institutions of society play in this.
That is the equivalent of punching someone in the face for kissing someone you did not approve of them liking in that way, and then blaming the relationship for causing the black eye they develop. The above situation is clearly described in the literature by many professional researchers, so it’s not pro-choicers who are doing the misinterpreting of that literature’s conclusions.
Would you expound on the whole “mature” vs “cognitive ability” dichotomy, Stephen? Also, hello from B4U-ACT!
Hi Michael,
I wasn’t exactly proposing a dichotomy between these two things. I was pointing out that the debater is probably using the word ‘mature’ in such a way as to rule out in advance people who look back on their childhood sexual experiences with anything other than shame or disgust and probably using the term ‘cognitive ability’ in such a way that people don’t count as ‘cognitively able’ if they don’t come to the ‘correct’ (i.e. negative) conclusions about these experiences.
By the way, there’s something I would like to ask you about, Michael, if I may crave Tom’s indulgence a moment. A month or two ago you made a brief comment on my blog, the ‘Forum for Understanding Minor Attraction’. However, you are not on the official list of members of the blog and I would like to have your e-mail address ,if possible. Would you mind contacting me about this by e-mail at minormattersmail@gmail.com? This is in case I need to get in touch with you at any time about matters relating to the blog.
In fact, could I make yet another appeal for people to join the blog? It is set up for people who are interested in the plight of minor-attracted people in the UK (where I live). It is a private blog, so if you want to join, you need to contact me. You can do this at the above e-mail address.
Stephen
And if it is not culture that declares it negative, but your own mind or genes? (To put a concept). I explain, if we acept that the personality and values are expressed in the first maturity, it means that if one could have had a good experience in childhood (because of having their mind and values as ‘neutral’), when they reach puberty and change those values can be transformed into something negative, not only by society, but by the own individual who is ‘programmed’ (or by any other reason) to be, for example hostile to the idea of sex in childhood or in itself.
So sexuality with children is like a game of dice.Some accept it positively because their personally, others negatively because culture and society, and others, and here is the important thing, negatively because themselves. I remember that ‘sexual tolerance and freedom’ is not something natural, but something cultural as well.
For this reason I argue that a responsible person would never do anything minimal sexual intimate with a child (nor even their parents). And I am not speaking without cause, I remember since puberty every sexual thing on my childhood as shocking and painful even today (But when it happened in childhood it was neutral and I assumed it naturally) so this is not for the creation of society, but for my own system of values and feelings which are owned by the individual and should not be coldly rational and utilitarian. So if even the repressive culture of CSA is over, there will still be people who feel abused.
You can also say that I am mentally ill, and that I should not consider the slightest intimate expression a rape, that is my own faul for being a puritan, but not are you considered mental ill for the most of humanity too? your feelings deserve rejection like the future person of these children?
> And I am not speaking without cause, I remember since puberty every sexual thing on my childhood as shocking and painful even today (But when it happened in childhood it was neutral and I assumed it naturally) so this is not for the creation of society, but for my own system of values and feelings which are owned by the individual and should not be coldly rational and utilitarian.
But how did you get that ‘system of values and feelings’? There must be something that caused it.
Well, per example we can say that in a world without monarchy we would be neutral to it, but as it exists, the most certain thing is that you have a positive or negative reaction, how does it form? It -also, but not only- depends on other factors, if you are, without the cultural environment, -naturally- traditional,egocentric, reactionary, authoritarian minded is most likely you have a positive reaction, if you are liberal and egalitarian minded then most likely negative. But it is not always is correct, look at Hitler, he said that the act of Napoleon of crowning himself was ridiculous, while the UK labor party accept the queen as something natural.
If one is born and grows surrounded by republican and egalitarian ideas, the majority will be naturally republicans and never can even think of being a ‘king’ or just make loyalty to one, but a minority of deviants will be always monarchical, and will be that by themselves without any cultural influence, by their own genes or characters. Except, of course the negative cultural influence, if one sees a republic as corrupt and ineffective one can lean that monarchy is better and good. Is it a good analogy? the process of set own values, the intelligent one call it to mature, the ignorant one, with nefarious consecuences, ‘being an adult’.
But when you decided, contrary to your feelings at the time, that your childhood sexual experiences were ‘shocking’, what was it about your own system of values that led you to that conclusion? Was it anything objective, such that we could say that others ought to come to the same conclusion or was it something entirely personal to you?
Please Explorer, give us a preview of this child lib essay, at least the issues to be addressed, here are people thirsty for such a succulent essay!
A stage not an age underpins ADULTOPHILE desire?
Paraphrased, “The youngest…in Alabama was 6 years old,” said Lt Brooke Walker Commander of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force for the State of Alabama, “She had no problem sending naked photos of herself to a man out of state, and that’s scary when Woldwide Webwize now MILLIONS of guilt free laughing kids mercilessly mock VILE Victorian sex laws by selfie seXting and more, AND with adults they fancy beyond all control. The smart phone these days is a silent entry for a benign Kinderphile to come into your home and aMuse your proactive, or predatory, child. You could be sitting with your child watching a movie and they could be GROOMING a nice Nonce nine thousand miles away…”
http://www.timesdaily.com/news/crime/alabama-is-seeing-more-child-porn-cases/article_94d38e48-2e71-5986-9b9a-988d2e0c394f.html#tncms-source=article-nav-next
From the linked news story:
>Predators can take seemingly innocent child graduation photos and pervert them for sexual gratification, Walker said.
If any photos of children can be used in this way, the time has clearly come to make all photography of children illegal, by anyone, including parents, passport photo machines, etc.
Or better still, why not make children themselves illegal? That would solve all child-abuse problems. Any male caught making a child should be castrated. Abortion should be compulsory for all pregnant women.
Well said, Tom!
Extreme, but why not say it?
M T-W.
Maybe children themselves won’t be made iilegal… but sexting by minors may soon result in a draconian punishment: 15 years of imprisonment. And this is just a minimum.
http://www.freerangekids.com/u-s-house-passes-bill-that-would-subject-teen-sexters-to-15-years-mandatory-minimum/
http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/31/house-overwhelmingly-supports-bill-subje
First when I saw it, I thought it is a kind of a gross and cruel joke. But it is, apparently, an entirely serious legislative proposal – which, to my dismay, will probably turn into a law.
This is sheer insanity. Pure madness. These people are SO desperate to “protect” children by atrociously repressing a slighest hint of their sexuality, that they are ready to condemn them to half a life behind bars – and other half being branded and blacklisted as “sexual offenders”.
The abstract idol of the Innocent Child is a bloodthirsy one, always demanding broken lives of actual children (and children-attracted adults) to be thrown on its altar. Once it was kids whose genitalia were burned with acid or hot iron to prevent them from mastrurbating. Now they would be condemned to isolation for (at least) decade and a half for posting a sexual photo of themselves.
Will it be an end to this devastative nonsense?!
All the blame is on all of you, because oppose totalitarianism, the only way to allow sex, marriage, work, anything, with ‘children’ under 18 is with a totalitarianism made by us where we force it, and I say literal totalitarianism like totalitarian regimes, not a Intolerant social group like SJW or radical feminists. Everything else is condemned to die, homosexuality is only accepted because it is part of feminism, sexual freedom ‘only between adults’ is because part of liberalism, both are the only acepted official totalitarian ideologies, so us will never win democratically and accepted by the majority. Nor acepted by any ideology, nor leftists nor conservadurism, nor liberals. NEVER. Sexuality with ‘children’ under 18 will be finally eradicated from the human species and us punished.
Or reclaim totalitarism and therefore reclaim the absolute power. Or claim your libertarian, conservative or liberal left etc. democratic tolerant utopia in your jail cell, 15 years.
Truly horrific. I thought for a moment that it was saying a maximum sentence of 15 years. That would have been bad enough. But a minimum at that level is beyond belief. I wonder whether the courts will really be willing to convict in that situation.
Is there a chance it won’t go through? Has it got to get past the senate as well?
I agree with other pro-choice MAPs who have argued in the past that the pedo panic hysteria is simply one component of an overall goal by the WEIRD governments–led by the U.S. and U.K.–to declare war on child sexuality itself.
Since it’s an impossible war to actually “win,” what these government agencies and their media supporters do instead is suppress virtually all but the most innocuous expressions of child sexuality. The creation of actual documentation of their sexual awareness and expression that might be admired the “wrong” way by adults or be used to incite sexual longing and similar expression in other minors is a major breach of the common narrative and perception that underagers are forced to adhere to. Sexting is one such example of creating and disseminating this sort of documentation.
Since they cannot actually “win” this war and eliminate child sexuality, they instead endeavor to suppress it to the point of creating the appearance of doing so, i.e., by making it as close to invisible as possible. Three of the major ways they do this are the following: 1. Severely penalizing all underagers who are caught compromising the narrative; 2. doing the same to all adults who likewise compromise the narrative by providing evidence of any sort that they admired younger people “in that way,” or allowed kids under their charge to behave in ways that compromise the narrative; 3. Reprimanding and punishing researchers who compile data that contradicts the moralistic narrative, which is most often accomplished by condemning their research, threatening their careers, and besmirching their reputation.
Hence, Kind people are just collateral damage to this war. We aren’t the biggest threat to that narrative by far; it’s actually children and young adolescents themselves who are. Truly objective researchers are another such threat. So it was only a matter of time until such oppressive and draconian laws were aimed directly at the kids themselves, instead of just at adults who admire them and/or disseminate the truth.
Or, if not that “extreme,” then perhaps we should make a legally enforced policy to require all kids outside of the home, and in photographs, to be covered from head to toe in a parka. Like women in various Muslim denominations are expected to do. Of course, that would require the end of water parks, or any amusement parks, and effectively make it pointless for kids to frolic at the beach, but hey, if it “protects” kids from the “predatory” thoughts and fantasies of vile monsters like Kinderfolk, then it’s all worth it, right? After all, what kid wants to be admired “in that way” by one of those monsters?
That will be totally effective, until the time when it becomes widely known that many Kind people actually have a fetish for viewing photos and videos of kids covered in parkas, in which case the law and advocates of child propriety will be back to square one. What to do, what to do…
Parka? Or burka?
Whoops! I meant to say burka! I dunno where I got “parka” from. Saints preserve me… :-\
Maybe it was Parkour, a dangerous sport that ‘minors’ are free to indulge in?
I remember chatting to an Argentinian mate in the Gym; He told me a story about how all kids, after a certain time in the evening MUST be home and not roaming the streets. He said a Police officer called him over and suddenly punched him in the midsection; The offices said, You want to be a man? Is that why you are still outside!
Have you seen this superb essay? https://pastebin.com/6BKeHbK6
I’m sure it’s good coming from Bernie Najarian. A quick glance tells me it is about the story behind the Azov Films bust. I’ll check it out ASAP, but as it is over 13,000 words that may not be immediate.
I’m about half-way through it. So far, it looks excellent.
Take heart, anti-TOC Amazon applauds Krinsky!
Charles Krinsky has taught at the University of California, Irvine, the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and most recently the College of Professional Studies of Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts.
Short title, ‘Moral Panics Over Modern Children’.
The concept of moral panic has received considerable scholarly attention, but as yet little attention has been accorded to panics over children and youth. This is the first book to examine this important and controversial social issue by employing a rigorous intellectual framework to explore the cultural construction of youth, through the dissemination of moral panics. A thought-provoking and important contribution to literature on SOCIAL CONTROL. His book will be of use to any scholars interested in social constructivist renderings of youth culture. It provides some much-needed qualitative understandings of moral regimes that are often inspired by, or IMPOSED UPON youth and that are too often left unquestioned and/or uninvestigated.
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Panics-Contemporary-Children-Youth/dp/0754674657
Thanks, Pro-Knowledge, for this info.
A quick check on Google shows that Ipce has made Chapter 5 of this book, which focuses on the moral panic over “child molesters”, available as a free download here:
https://www.ipce.info/sites/ipce.info/files/biblio_attachments/naming_blaming_and_framing_-_moral_panic_over_child_molesters_and_its_implications_for_public_policy_-_pamela_d._schultz.pdf
Published in 2008, the book does not seem to have had much attention outside the academic world but that may say less about its quality than about the unpopular nature of its theme and conclusions.
Has anyone here read it?
Despite the obscurity of this book, Krinsky appears to have soldiered on with the theme and brought out another not so long ago:
The Ashgate Research Companion to Moral Panics
Edited by Charles Krinsky
2013, Routledge
This volume brings together contributions from a number of writers, some of whom I have read and can vouch for as interesting, notably Joel Best.
See here:
https://www.routledge.com/The-Ashgate-Research-Companion-to-Moral-Panics/Krinsky/p/book/9781409408116
One item in the earlier book I would certainly like to read is a chapter I didn’t know about concerning Michael Jackson:
Krinsky, C. 2008. The moral panic that never was: news media, law enforcement, and the Michael Jackson trial, in Moral Panics over Contemporary Children and Youth, edited by C. Krinsky. Aldershot: Ashgate, 111—22.
>The Ashgate Research Companion to Moral Panics
I love the title. Sounds like something Corporal Jones would enjoy if he were an academic.:-)
>Sounds like something Corporal Jones would enjoy if he were an academic.
Wow, that’s a stunning feat of imagination! I can’t get my head around the idea of Corporal Jones running around in a complete tizz shouting “Don’t moral panic” Don’t moral panic!” I wonder what the circumstances would have to be?! 🙂
Quote True Brit Lance Corp Jones, “They do not like it UP ’em!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR0lOtdvqyg
They don’t like it up ’em, indeed. I expect Jonesey would be a fan of ‘Wittgenstein’s Poker’:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_Poker
Greetings Tom
Your articles certainly excite much comment.
I wanted to mention that your view on Puberty setting in earlier and relating to class. I have heard theories that early Puberty could be related to Growth Hormones being used in the animals for consumption in the Western Nations – although I do not know if this is true -. An article once stated that there was a case of a 10 year-old boy who impregnated a 14 year-old girl. It certainly seems that children are far more mature physically as well as mentally (higher I.Q.’s) than in the past.
I personally prefer boys between the ages of 7 to 17 years myself. I have noticed that when we travel to countries where they population is more impoverished we will witness boys appearing much younger.
I recall a backpacking trip I made to Cuba in 2007 where I met a boy (selling art) who was very short, thin and quite immature to appearance. I took him as being no more than 15 or 16 years old. I did meet him later on and discovered that he was in fact 21 years old! In 2009 I was backpacking through Myanmar and noticed that it was difficult to tell what age a boy was there because they also appeared to be very immature compared to Western Boys.
Has this always been the case? You certainly made me think.
Well done!
Thanks Octaevius. Nobody can say for certain what is behind earlier puberty although changed diet is generally given as the No. 1 candidate. Growth hormones given to animals could be a recent factor. That in itself would reach us through what we eat. But it would not explain the fact that earlier puberty started long before added hormones came into play.
Another interesting candidate relating solely to modern times is the introduction of electric lighting over the last century of so, effectively increasing the “daylight” hours available at home. It is believed that this extra light may be fooling our biological clocks, thought to be regulated be light reaching the mildly light sensitive pineal gland. Or at least, that was the thinking a few years ago when I chanced upon this theory.
We just do not know for certain when puberty typically occurred in earlier times. As already indicated, though, there are good reasons for supposing it was later for anyone whose food supply was very limited in childhood, or not that nutritious.
Blaire White just posted another video about pedophilia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYZONMswfoE
Another sad news: Labour is still not a leading party after elections, and Jeremy Corbyn won’t become a new Prime Minister. Well, all polls had showed that Conservatives has a lead… but their lead was just about 3 percent, if i remember correctly. And – don’t we remember that nearly all polls claimed that Hillary would win? And we all know who actually won. So, I had a real hope that Corbyn and Labour will be victorious, despite all.
Yet, there is something to cheer, too – Conservatives no longer have parliamentary majority, and Labour has improved its results greatly, as it has been doing for all the recent time. And, if I recall it correctly, Corbyn was once considered a hopeless political outsider, too radical to be taken seriously by “respectable” society. And now look at his growth in the public eyes. I hope he has a future, since the “mainstream consensus” appears to crumble everywhere, and we desperately need someone who can propose an alternative.
And Corbyn’s alternative looks much more humane, promising and desirable than Authoritarian Right one.
Labour did far better than most of us expected after coming from very far behind largely because leader Jeremy Corbyn was badly underrated, even by many in his own party. The new Conservative government is not expected to last long. Better than 50:50 chance of another election this year.
What greater factual evidence of c.99% benign Kinderphilia can the hypocritical in denial perverse phoney Anglophone ‘modern’ mainstream have, than that of Edmund’s own book based on their own elite Anglo background?
Past and present numerous elite educated high achiever ANGLOS were systematically supposedly ‘abused’ from age-8 by Kinderphile older boys and Kinderphile tutors sexually-fagging them for ‘character forming’ at elite Harrow, Eton, etc.
Creating NOT life scarred low income VICTIMS seeking BIG compo, but trauma-free aMused not aBused adult national and World leaders, of politics, industry, commerce, and high finance!
Q.E.D.
A very sad piece of news: the most well-known pro-paedophile YouTube channel, Omnipolitics16, has been blocked:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4kdEGVoX4PNK7WJL_v5mxA
After Antipedophobe Aktion disappeared under pressure, this is a very disturbing trend: it seemed that the more vocal PaedLib activists are becoming, the more likely they face repression.
This is why I’m always a bit anxious when I’m entering any Paedosphere Web page: I’m always afraid to see nothing but the message that the page is suspended.
BTW, I contancted Omni via e-mail and asked whether he intend to contact YouTube administration and claim his channel back. The chances of success are, unfortunately, vanishingly small; but they are still non-zero. Once I had a small e-mail exchange with Omni, so, I hope, he will respond this time, too.
Same with Google+. First they censor legal images without nudity nor sex. I quote Pigtails in Paint: “tried to share Ilona Szwarc’s photograph Desiree, Brooklyn, NY and it was immediately flagged as inappropriate followed by a message stating that it “may be in violation of our User Content and Conduct Policy”. They added that “Content that depicts the exploitation or abuse of children, presents children in a sexual manner, or facilitates inappropriate contact with children is not permitted.” After appealing the decision, a reviewer upheld the decision.”
Now I have reduced Google+ access for two weeks: I can just read things, but not like nor write nor make contacts. I guess it is because I was member of the HP group, where I patiently strived to instil wise ideas into the heads of rather impulsive activists with SJW and identity politics deviations.
But I have found a way to retaliate, which should work on any subsidiary of Google like Google+ or YouTube:
– Find a profile or a group that promotes gross antisemitism, holocaust denial or Nazism; on Google+ this is fairly easy, make a search on “Jewish conspiracy” or “holocaust”.
– Report that profile’s or group’s URL to the French government’s portal for reporting illegal Internet contents:
https://www.internet-signalement.gouv.fr/PortailWeb/planets/Accueil!input.action
You can also report it to the LICRA, who will take action:
http://www.licra.org/signalement/
– reply to Google (or YouTube), indicate that you reported them for violating French laws on hate speech and Holocaust denial, and express your hope that they will be under the injunction of a French court to respect these laws.
Indeed, in France (as in Germany), hate speech and Holocaust denial are severely punished by law. And Google already had some trouble with French courts for tax evasion.
I contacted Omni, and, happily, he is not going to give up – he will start another YouTube channel, in some time and under different name. He said he will try his best to remain on YouTube and will not be defeated so easily.
I have found an indication that the Spartans were one of worst feminist civilizations of earth, an impious assertion that I am terrified to put here, so I warn you that it is extremely offensive to any good man who follow natural law and not the evil human laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Role_of_women
“Most important, rather than being married off at the age of 12 or 13, Spartan law forbade the marriage of a girl until she was in her late teens or early 20s. The reasons for delaying marriage were to ensure the birth of healthy children, but the effect was to spare Spartan women the hazards and lasting health damage associated with pregnancy among adolescents.”
If this is true it is horrifying and a crime, a violation of the natural law, which requires marriage and pregnancy as soon the girl reaches puberty (you see, like romans and other greeks, at 12 or 13, like 99% of SANE humanity before feminism). Also note that reasons are junk science, because adolescent pregnancy is really healthy, even more young, more healthy is to the girl and the baby, so spartans mens like their modern counterparts are a fine example of female-dominated pricks.
Although everything smells of British feminism from far: the reference to this is by “Susan Blundell,” Women in Ancient Greece, “British Museum Press, London, 1999” so I need confirmation of this but…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_ancient_Sparta
“There is some evidence in ancient sources that the Spartans practiced polyandry. Herodotus says that the bigamy of Anaxandridas II was un-Spartan,[25]”[26] Along with plural marriage, older men seem to have allowed younger, more fit men, to impregnate their wives”
WTF, so spartan men are not allowed to bang young teen girls and marry multiple women, but women are allowed to bang with multiple and more young men, and spartan men support this insanity! like our modern feminist utopia!
“Spartan women seem to have married relatively late relative to their counterparts elsewhere in Greece. While Athenian girls might have expected to marry for the first time around the age of fourteen, Spartan girls might have waited until they were between eighteen and twenty, and probably married men who were around the age of 25.”
Exactly like this sick modern feminist society!! In short Sparta was a feminist state where women dominated fisically strong but mentally weak men who only live to die at war to defend ungrateful old women and practiced a Nazi eugenics progam who includes kill unwanted children (feminism again), and they were also a democracy, the worst form of government ever created. Did you know that in the SS, marriages were not allowed if there was a difference in age? What I said, effeminate pricks. These societies do not deserve worship, deserve contempt.
>Also note that reasons are junk science
Wot? The Spartans were misled by junk science?
>they were also a democracy
Really? Wasn’t that Athens? It is usually reported that Sparta was a military oligarchy, ruled by the generals. They had kings as well, but with restricted powers. In fairness, though, there do appear to have been some democratic elements in the constitution.
They were deceived with a primitive version of modern junk science, which are woman saying “I’m a “fully-developed womyn” (In Greek of course) trust me, they are too young to give birth, look at them, if they are only little girls.. for (insert Greek god here) sake”
————————–
This text say it seems that it was a bit of everything, a mixture between kingdom, oligarchy and democracy.
http://www.rangevoting.org/SpartaBury.html
The truth is that its form of government is very interesting, regardless of the above. I would like to say that if I abhor democracy it is because of vote franchise and the rule by majority. Which seems horrible to me that a president, government or law is elected or enacted because the majority of people older that X vote for that.
I also do not support the opposite, like oligarchy, because, and I think the majority think like me in this case, I feel that MAP issues is like a committee of scientists or technocracy that only they have the capacity to decide on our sexuality and expression, or as some have expressed here before, that only the “experts” or “professionals” seem to have a voice that matters at end.
It’s like debating whether the US is a representative democracy or a plutocratic oligarchy, both are horrible to me and other people.
A small but great post from this new wordpress site, where he talks (in this post and others) about everything I say that teenagers are young adults and that all heterosexual men are atracted to women since puberty directly and without taking prisoners, I highly recommend the visit!
https://graytwin.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/the-enlightenment-and-its-sexual-discontents/
BTW I have heard that a such an order of magnitude has made a video against my friend hypersonic, tell him that the only order here is me, okay?
Sorry to come in a bit late on this topic but I’ve had to set a bit of time aside for further thought and investigation, as will be obvious from the length and nature of this comment. My remarks are focused on the differing views of Edmund and Filip, as expressed in an extensive exchange here.
Filip asks for proof that men are attracted to younger boys now on account of earlier puberty and he says the evidence required for such a conclusion is lacking. OK, but definitive proof is really difficult. Edmund has given evidence though, leading to this argument: (a) there is strong evidence that the age of puberty has been falling sharply in the last 200 years or more and (b) there is evidence from recent studies that men who say they are attracted to boys are mainly attracted to those in early adolescence; the boys’ ages are younger than those of the boys who seem to have attracted men in ancient Greece and Renaissance Florence; (c) the difference between these historically varying ages of attraction (AOA) can be explained by a fall in the age of puberty. This argument is not watertight, but in my view it is both plausible and interesting.
Filip makes the strong point that those who identity as BLs provide evidence only about their own AOA towards boys, not the AOA of men in general, nearly all of whom are preferentially attracted to women. Most men, though, as the evidence from Florence shows, appear potentially able to find adolescent boys attractive and will engage with them sexually under culturally favourable conditions.
Filip asserts that “normal” men are more interested in boys of 14 than 11. Edmund challenged this and in my view it was a strong challenge. Contrary to what Filip suggests, there is evidence that “normal” men are – surprisingly, perhaps – likely to be somewhat more attracted to prepubescent boys than to pubescent ones, though this does depend on what is meant by “normal” men. Actually, Filip did report this finding (taken from a different Blanchard paper), but he did not discuss it. The evidence to which I am referring represents not a large randomly chosen selection of men but rather a sample whose strongest sexual preference is for adult women (in the technical language, they are heterosexually teleiophilic). In other words, their sexual preference is by far the commonest one for men.
The evidence in question is from phallometric studies by Blanchard et al., specifically a paper called “Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men”. This paper was felt to be so important that an executive summary was provided. I commend this summary to everyone because I agree as to the significance of the paper: it is a hugely informative piece of work. The summary is freely accessible here:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/ray_blanchard/index_files/Allo_summary.pdf
Take a look, in particular, at the top left-hand section of Figure 1, which shows the penile response pattern of heterosexual teleiophilic males (i.e. arousal to adult women is stronger than to any other age/gender combination) to a range of different age/gender combinations, including what perks up their peckers most strongly. The graph has two curves, the actual experimental result (solid green line) and what Blanchard’s theoretical model had predicted (broken red line). Both curves are very similar but we are mainly concerned just with the green one for present purposes.
What do we see? The men’s strongest response is to adult women, followed by a less strong response to pubescent girls. Beyond that, the strength of response towards other age/gender categories gradually tails off in a way that Blanchard and his team had predicted: through every age category these men preferred females. As regards their response to males, it became weaker as the age of the boys/youths/men shown in the stimulus pictures grew higher, reflecting Blanchard’s theoretical proposition that these men find boys more attractive than men because boys resemble females, or make a more credible substitute for females, than hulking, muscular, hairy-arsed blokes do. And here’s the thing: it is the smaller, less muscular, less hairy, prepubescent boys who attract these men to a greater extent than the bigger pubescent ones. Seen as a continuum, as Blanchard presents the evidence, it makes sense. Not only does it make sense: it reflects real empirical data taken in carefully controlled laboratory conditions. In other words, it has to be taken seriously as strong evidence.
Filip also challenged the view that the age of puberty was necessarily higher in ancient Greece than it is now. This is certainly an interesting challenge because it highlights our lack of good evidence on the subject. Also, greatly to my surprise, I found there is some research online (though most of it appears to rely on very inadequate information) showing greater consistency in the age of puberty across most historical periods than one might think would be the case judging by the trend in recent centuries. It emerges that in the Classical period and in Medieval times, contemporary writers, mainly physicians, generally reported the age of puberty for girls as 12, or thereabouts, and 14 for boys. There are strong suspicions, though, that some of the later commentators tended simply to repeat the opinion of Aristotle, the most prestigious authority but one who was not necessarily reliable on this matter, as I suggested some time ago on HTOC.
The most extensive trawl through the historical references appears to be by Amundsen & Diers, who did two papers, one in 1969 on the age of menarche in classical times and a later one in 1973 on the medieval period. However, the historian Edward Shorter claims “A long period of scarcity settled over Western society at the end of the Middle Ages, apparently affecting women by increasing the average age at which puberty began.” He speaks of this increase in the age of menarche lasting from the 14th to the 18th centuries. If true, it seems reasonable to think the age of boy’s puberty rose as well. (Women’s Bodies: A Social History of Women’s Encounter With Health, Ill-Health and Medicine, by Edward Shorter, Routledge, 1990, p.18).
More recently, there has been a positively exciting development (doesn’t take much to light my fire, though!) in the assessment of historical puberty age through skeletal evidence. A paper by Arthur, Gowland & Redfern in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology just last year brings us up to date on this. They applied their new methods to two Romano-British cemetery samples (1st to early 5th centuries AD) and found that “Overall, the Romano-British males and females experienced the onset of puberty at similar ages to modern European adolescents, but subsequently experienced a longer period of pubertal development. Menarche occurred between the ages of 15 and 17 years for these Romano-British females, around 2 to 4 years later than for present-day European females.” If the methodology is sound, there would appear to be huge potential for graveyard studies of this kind at numerous locations and periods. See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22929/full
What is missing from most of the puberty age studies, though, is a detailed consideration of the different ages of puberty likely to have been experienced in the past by the rich and the poor. Edward Shorter mentioned periods of scarcity, but they would have hit mainly the poor. As I wrote three years ago at HTOC: “My theory is that Aristotle and some medical authorities of classical times put the age of male puberty in those days too low. Only the wealthiest class could afford the services of a doctor: these boys would have been exceptionally well fed, and it is now known that a rich diet leads to puberty several years earlier than typically experienced by impoverished children of either sex. Likewise, Aristotle would surely have known less about the bodies of street ragamuffins than those of the athletic young lads whose naked bodies he saw regularly at the gymnasium – boys from prosperous families, whose fathers could afford to send them for training.”
https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/its-no-accident-were-getting-the-hump/
My theory finds some modest confirmation in one of the recent archaeological studies, which shows a different medieval age of puberty in a wealthy town (Barton-upon-Humber, Lincolnshire) compared to a poorer location (St Mary Spital, London, a hospital cemetery thought to include poor and migrant workers). See Shapland & Lewis: https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/archaeology/AAPA_poster_final.pdf
Finally, Michael called for “pax” between Filip and Edmund. I concur with that, but he added “does all this talk of numbers, boxes, classifications…mean anything really important?” I think it does, actually. The only way we can advance knowledge is through careful study, and the most convincing research is that which goes beyond debatable anecdotes and gets us into the realm of statistical quantification – which is why Rocke’s study is so powerful, as Edmund fully understands.
“Filip asserts that “normal” men are more interested in boys of 14 than 11.
No Tom, I wrote “maybe” and speculated that this could be the truth. I wrote several times that we don´t have enough empirical studies to know the truth for sure in this issue.
“In other words, it has to be taken seriously as strong evidence.”
You might be right but I am skeptical about this judgment. If you look closely at the results of the paper “Sexual Attraction to Others: A Comparison of Two Models of Alloerotic Responding in Men” yes those men are a little bit more aroused by prepubertal boys than by pubertal boys. But if you look closely they are also a little bit more aroused by adult men than by pubertal boys. So are “normal” men more attracted by adult men than by pubertal boys? Right now I can not believe this. What could be the reason for this result? The figure just gives us the mean values for all “teleiophilic” men. Maybe – once again MAYBE to avoid further problems – men who are rather strongly attracted by boys show more sexual arousal to pubertal boys than to prepubertal boys while the result for all “teleiophilic” men is that they show a little bit more sexual arousal to prepubertal boys than to pubertal boys. It would be interesting to see a more detailed analyze of these findings for different groups.
“Filip also challenged the view that the age of puberty was necessarily higher in ancient Greece than it is now.”
Just to make it clear: I just wrote that I missed an analyze of this aspect in the article. If I understand what you wrote Tom right although there are different opinions it is currently not the general opinion of science that the age of puberty was earlier in the times we were talking about here compared with today. Maybe we simply have to wait 100 years until we know the truth in this specific issue.
>…if you look closely they are also a little bit more aroused by adult men than by pubertal boys.
You are right. Well spotted!
>So are “normal” men more attracted by adult men than by pubertal boys? Right now I can not believe this.
Nor can I. I imagine the reason I did not notice this from the graph is that the reported effect is so very small and is at odds, though only very slightly, with a theoretical model that in general is robustly supported by the data. Looking at the bigger picture, in other words all six of the graphs and all 36 types of responses, it will be seen that no fewer than 34 of the responses fit what the model predicted. To me, that suggests an extremely impressive model. In both cases of slight divergence from the model (the other one was the unexpected slight preference of homosexual hebephiles for pubescent as opposed to prepubescent girls), the effect size is clearly small.
Based on this general pattern, I would predict that the unexpected findings would disappear if tested with another group of participants, or multiple groups. There are 30 separate preference gradients. In subsequent re-runs with different participants, I would expect the model to be right in about 28 out of 30 cases, with the occasional divergence occurring randomly on any of those slopes (of which I see 5 candidates) where the gradient in the present data set is close to horizontal.
>… it is currently not the general opinion of science that the age of puberty was earlier in the times we were talking about here compared with today.
No but the suggestion is that the age of puberty was later, not earlier, in historical times compared to today. However, I think you probably meant to say later, not earlier. Either way, you are right that there is no scientific consensus because not enough is known.
However, what does seem to be the scientific consensus is that diet is the key factor influencing the age of puberty in both sexes. So if we can get good information on nutrition in different places at different times in history we would be able to make an educated guess as to the age of puberty. The data would be complicated, though, by a lot of quite local variation and also wealth-based differences.
I would predict that the age of puberty in ancient Rome, for instance, especially that of the urban poor in the city, would be a lot higher than in coastal Herculaneum, for instance, where there is now known to have been a much more varied “Mediterranean diet”, with a good range of fish, fruit and veg in plentiful supply even for the less well off.
“However, I think you probably meant to say later, not earlier.”
Yes, sorry.
“Based on this general pattern, I would predict that the unexpected findings would disappear if tested with another group of participants, or multiple groups.”
I would be careful with that prediction because Blanchard “tested” thousands of men with high professionalism. Let´s have a look at other studies. I am aware of three phallometric studies that tested “normals” how much they were sexually aroused by prepubertal, pubertal and adult females and males. In study 1 (Rice et al. (2012) Adolescents Who Have Sexually Offended: Is Phallometry Valid?) adult “non-offenders” were more aroused by adult males than by pubertal males and more aroused by pubertal males than by “child male 9-12”. In this study all three groups (“non-offenders”, “adult sex-offenders” and adolescents) were more or equally aroused by “pubertal males” than by “child male 9-12”. In study 2 (Quinsey et al. (1975) Penile Circumference, Skin Conductance, and Ranking Responses of Child Molesters and “Normals” to Sexual and Nonsexual Visual Stimuli) “normals” were more sexually aroused by adult males than by “pubertal males” and more aroused by “pubertal males” than by “child males”. In study 3 (Marshall et al. (1988) Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preferences) “normals” were basically in the same way sexually aroused by 9 to 20 years old males. So right now we have three studies who showed sexual arousal for all men (not for groups with specific age preferences as in the Blanchard-paper) and in all three studies these men were more or equally sexually aroused by pubertal males than by prepubertal males.
From my point of view this whole thing here goes way to fast and is definitely not “wonderfully balanced” as Edmund wrote. Anyway: I wish everybody who reads this a great summer with great (prepubertal and/or pubertal) boys! 😉
Thanks, Filip. These further studies you cite certainly cast significant doubt on the strength of Blanchard’s model. I must look at them in more detail.
Filip do you think the evidence is consistent with the claim that most heterosexual men, to the extent they have any attraction to males, prefer pre-pubertal and pubescent boys to post-pubertal boys/men?
Stephen6000 these three studies tested all men and not just heterosexual men who are sexually interested in males. For several reasons I can not directly answer your question and just give you the results of the three studies. In study 1 (Rice et al. (2012) Adolescents Who Have Sexually Offended: Is Phallometry Valid?) “non-offenders” showed more sexual arousal to adult males than to females pubertals so maybe we better ignore this study. In study 2 (Quinsey et al. (1975) Penile Circumference, Skin Conductance, and Ranking Responses of Child Molesters and “Normals” to Sexual and Nonsexual Visual Stimuli) “normals” were more sexually aroused by adult males than by pubertal males (12-15 years) and more aroused by pubertal males than by male children (5-11). In study 3 (Marshall et al. (1988) Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preferences) “normals” were basically the same way aroused by 11-, 15- and 24-year-old males, just a little bit more by 15- and 24-year-olds than by 11-year-old males.
Thanks, Filip. It’s pretty strange. As Tom said, you’d expect predominantly heterosexual men, if they have any attraction to males at all, to be more attracted to those who bear more physical resemblance to females, which would be prepubertal and (to a lesser extent) pubescent males.
That sounds like the homosexuals in that particular group. Anecdotal of course, A homosexual friend of mine likes teenage boys, But finds prepubescent males too ‘small’. The only thing we have in common is our mutual attraction to blonde feminine adolescents whom I can find just as attractive as younger boys whose attraction would wane at around seven. Yes I find ‘hot’ women as attractive as pubescent girls or boys, But more kids are slim and attractive compared to adults because many do not stay in shape; Therefore, as a whole, I find ‘minors’ more attractive ‘on average’ than adults.
I think your summary of the evidence is wonderfully balanced and added some fascinating things to it that I was not aware of.
I would add two things to your criticism of Aristotle as a source for when Athenian boys reached puberty, but to do so I need to quote him:
“The male first begins to produce seed, as a rule, on the completion of twice seven years. At the same time the growth of the pubic hair begins, just as plants that are about to seed produce flowers first, as Alcmaion of Kroton says. At about this same time, firstly the voice begins to change … (History of Animals 581a).
First, we know all these things don’t happen at once, and I’m sure Aristotle did too. He was offering a broad description of the boy’s development and I should think he would be surprised to know that more than two thousand years later his words were being taken so literally.
More importantly, note the use of “twice seven.” If you read more of his book, you will see he is presenting for simplified understanding a seven-year scheme of attaining reason at seven (when Greek boys were removed from their mothers’ care), then puberty at twice seven, then full maturity at thrice seven. If we had been around then and pointed out to the great man that we had evidence boys reached puberty at fifteen, I suspect Aristotle would have regarded us as pedantic spoilers of his scheme. Seven was a hugely symbolic number in antiquity and thereafter. I would suggest it was this more than Aristotle himself that influenced fourteen becoming the age at which Roman and canon law presumed boys reached puberty and, until recently, the choice of twenty-one as the attainment of full adulthood.
Hence, I don’t think we have more than vague indications as to when the Greeks reached puberty. I do indeed take the statistics found by Rocke very seriously, but that is because such evidence from long ago is so freakishly rare. Most of the past cannot be fruitfully explored by anyone so historically naive enough as to expect such statistics for the ancient world or to think we can afford to exclude the Greeks from this discussion because our valuable knowledge of the age of boys that attracted them can only be related to the age of puberty through more subtle means.
If discussion of most historical societies is not to be shut down for lack of statistics, then sometimes one must resort to more generalised evidence. The studies I cited above studies cited (Politics and Life Sciences 20 (1) p.48) give statistical information from many past societies. I repeat that every single one shows puberty being reached to some degree later in the past, and therefore earlier puberty is the fairest assumption to make for all of recorded history until we perhaps learn better through new scientific approaches of the kind you mentioned.
>I think your summary of the evidence is wonderfully balanced and added some fascinating things to it that I was not aware of.
Thanks, Edmund!
>Aristotle… was offering a broad description of the boy’s development and I should think he would be surprised to know that more than two thousand years later his words were being taken so literally.
If Aristotle were to hear about all the amazing advances that have been made in science and technology, I think he would be staggered. And he would surely be dizzy with astonished excitement to find that in the midst of all these developments he was still being quoted with great reverence as an authority on anything at all. Or even remembered in any way. Indeed, it would be utterly astounding if the whole thing didn’t go to the old boy’s head, philosopher or not!
>More importantly, note the use of “twice seven.” If you read more of his book, you will see he is presenting for simplified understanding a seven-year scheme of attaining reason at seven (when Greek boys were removed from their mothers’ care), then puberty at twice seven, then full maturity at thrice seven.
Yes, I was aware of this.
>If we had been around then and pointed out to the great man that we had evidence boys reached puberty at fifteen, I suspect Aristotle would have regarded us as pedantic spoilers of his scheme.
Theory should always yield to facts. That applies to Aristotle’s ideas as much as those of anyone else. Having said that, when a lot of facts have been advanced in support of a theory, we may be right to doubt any “facts” coming along later that contradict the theory. A good example is to be found in my reply to Filip today about Blanchard’s alloerotic theory. The answer is to take more measurements and double-check for errors.
>Seven was a hugely symbolic number in antiquity and thereafter. I would suggest it was this more than Aristotle himself that influenced fourteen becoming the age at which Roman and canon law presumed boys reached puberty and, until recently, the choice of twenty-one as the attainment of full adulthood.
Yes, these multiples of seven, or hebdomads, became very powerfully embedded in the public imagination, didn’t they? Even 28 comes into it. It was thought that the end of the third hebdomad, at 21, marked the end of growth in height, whereas the end of the 4th, at 28, marked the end of the growth in girth. This last point was as majestic a triumph of theory over fact as anything in the realm of human belief!
>The studies I cited above studies cited (Politics and Life Sciences 20 (1) p.48) give statistical information from many past societies. I repeat that every single one shows puberty being reached to some degree later in the past, and therefore earlier puberty is the fairest assumption to make for all of recorded history until we perhaps learn better through new scientific approaches of the kind you mentioned.
Bearing in mind the far more precarious food supply in most historical times and places than in the developed modern world, and the known relationship of regular good nutrition to early puberty, I think there is every probability you are right.
Thank you for weighing in on the debate here, Tom. However, one thing I take issue with is the contention, allegedly backed by empirical data, that most men have a sufficient potential sexual attraction to adolescent males that this great majority would likely engage in relations with them if the cultural conditions were favorable enough. This assertion, I think, is related to something I have often had issue with regarding this community and research conducted on it, and it’s something that IMO never gets “old” to repeat due to its very visible consequences.
I think the bias in question that results in such a conclusion is the hugely disproportionate amount of research and study that goes into man/boy relations and the consequent extreme marginalization of man/girl love, not only in contemporary times but also throughout history. I think it’s common sense to surmise man/girl love was certainly no less common than man/boy love in the history of intergenerational relationships, but one could easily be led to assume otherwise when one considers the dearth of attention and research given to the former as opposed to the latter. Though I think there are a number of factors to explain why female pedophilia and hebephilia have gained scant attention and research compared to male (which I have gone into before), I honestly think one of those factors, which I have gleaned from extensive empirical observations of my own after nearly 17 years of close association with the Kind community, is that the vast majority of female MAPs we have met were attracted to girls. This suggests one of the reasons they have fallen off the research radar is because they have nothing to do with specifically man/boy love. And there is plenty of evidence that woman/girl love was far from rare throughout history, and should be considered every bit as worthy of study as man/boy love and man/girl love. But it’s not. This has, you will note, led to the very incorrect conclusion among many researchers that adult attraction to minors is rare to virtually non-existent among females. This is another mis-conclusion wrought by a lack of interest in research, which creates an illusion of scarcity and focus of priority that is nothing short of heavily biased.
Now I’m not saying attraction to adolescent boys is rare among men per se, but viable data suggesting that the seed exists in most men naturally, just waiting for the right cultural factors to let it out? That I highly doubt, and I think this troubling form of research bias creates the illusion that it is so. Biased research does tend to result in biased data, and consequently, biased conclusions and even more biased assumptions. This makes these conclusions and the assumptions that grow out of it more political than factual or empirical.
And let’s face it, as much as I love the BLer’s in our community and appreciate all they have done for the Kind community as a whole to keep us politically relevant in the face of vast opposition, their understandable political dominance of the overall Kind community until just very recently has resulted in that disproportionate degree of interest and priority for man/boy love in those who research the Kind attraction base, to the point where many researchers still prefer to focus on man/boy love alone. It’s a tendency that even spills into your blog here. This is not to say that you, personally, have this bias, Tom, and I know you have shown sympathy with this concern of mine in the past; what it does mean, I think, is that the bias is so ubiquitous and pervasive in the Kind community that it simply cannot help but spill over into your blog as well as almost everywhere that doesn’t make an effort to cater exclusively to GL. This marginalization has resulted in a lot of needless antipathy and separation between the BL and GL segments of the Kind community on both a personal and political front, and as noted above, I think it has something (though not all) to do with the similar degrees of antipathy and separation between male MAPs and female MAPs in general.
Now I cannot speak for all of my fellow male heterosexuals, so please do not think I am doing so by saying this, but I think Kind people who are attracted to both boys and girls may simply assume that heterosexual men find pubescent and young adolescent boys “similar enough” to young girls that a joint attraction could arise. Speaking from the strictly heterosexual point of view, and knowing more than my share of heterosexual MAPs as well as those who are attracted to both boys and girls, I can assure you that to a heterosexual at least, young boys greatly differ from heterosexual girls in many ways. The lack of excessive hair on the bodies is not a difference that makes all the difference, or necessarily makes them similar enough to girls in that age group. Pubescent boys also do not have the same smoothness of skin or other bodily features that attract hebephiles at least, including budding breasts, but this difference may be less glaring to MAPs who are attracted to both boys and girls, as well as homosexual and bisexual men. Also, heterosexual men are not attracted at all to the presence of a penis and testicles, and this is not something that is easy to overlook when it comes to in-depth sexual contact. Again, I imagine this may be difficult for a male who is homosexual or bisexual, regardless of their specific age preferences, to incorporate into their perspective. Even the few boys who do have an unusually girlish appearance, who can for a few moments catch the eye of a heterosexual male (and yes, they do exist, I acknowledge this), the presence of a penis and testicles is often a “deal-breaker” for exclusive heterosexual males. Note I said often, not “always”; however, I do stick by “often.”
Now again, I do not purport to speak for all heterosexual men, as there is a great degree of diversity within the spectrum of even less broad attraction bases, and I am well aware of this. However, I think I can speak to an educated though not absolute extent for the majority, and I do think the bias I point out in research and politics is evident on many levels, and has been for a long time.
Actually, Dissy, none of the research I quoted, nor any of my wording, is in the slightest bit at odds with anything you are saying here. If that was not made explicit it is simply because it was not the topic under discussion.
The main research in the post to which you are replying was Blanchard et al.’s sexual preference gradients. They show (as I stated) that heterosexual men (i.e. the vast majority of men) prefer females of all three researched stages (adult, pubescent and
prepubescent) to males in any of these groups. Take a good look at the charts if you have not already done so. In my view they are very revealing.
Likewise the point from the Florence research about most men is based on Rocke-solid evidence (if you will forgive the pun) grounded in exceptionally good historical statistics. You might choose to dispute the validity of the stats, which is fine, but that would require first getting to grips with Rocke’s work.
What the stats imply, though, is that most men would also (in fact even more of them) have sex with young girls if the cultural conditions were right. This has generally not been the case, though, as girls’ virginity in patriarchal societies has been under tight paternal control.
That said, as a GL myself, I fully share your concern that BL issues tend to dominate the discourse. I even discussed possible reasons for this in a piece for Alice Lovers Magazine a few years ago. I see someone has abstracted the point I made and presented it here: https://www.brongersma.info/How_could_GLs_find_themselves_so_marginalized_within_CL_activism%3F
“That said, as a GL myself…”
Tom, maybe I’m missing something, but aren’t you a boy-lover? At least, I had this impression after reading you “Paedophilia: the Radical Case”, especially its first chapter…
I’m bi. BL and GL. Or just Kind.
I didn’t really notice girls until I was well into my twenties, though, perhaps as a result of having been at an all-boys school from 11 to 18. But once I finally did begin to “see” them I more or less immediately found them as attractive as boys, and have done ever since.
I’m with you on that one re BL + GL. I find their beauty equally frustrating!
I disagree with Blanchard’s “line” model of erotic attraction, as a position in an ordered line woman—young girl—little girl—little boy—young boy—man. It does not explain nepiophilia as distinct from paedophilia, nor gerontophilia as distinct from teleiophilia, nor the fact that some teleiophilic bisexuals have no significant paedophilic attraction. Plus the arguments of Dissident about heterosexual hebephiles and paedophiles who require the appropriate little sexual mark (like a “guarantee of origin” for good wine). I read a paper by Blanchard where he compared his model to a simple “rectangle” model where attraction is based on the two independent variables of age and gender. I would rather propose a two-dimensional model with one axis age, and on the other axis gender having its importance weighted by age. For instance in nepiophilia gender has almost no importance, it increases with age. If we exclude gerontophilia, this would make a triangle with two corners man and woman at the top, and a third corner (gender-neutral) baby at the bottom.
True, many heterosexual hebephiles consider themselves as normal. And the general public does so to some extent. In French media, the word “paedophilia” has been used for teachers molesting primary school kids or for priests molesting teenage boys, but when a priest made a teenage girl pregnant, they said “sexual abuse”. And when arose the affair of Mary Kay Letourneau having a baby fathered by her 13-y-o pupil Vili Fulaau, the presenter at French national TV presented it as “forbidden love”. So heterosexual hebephilia is just seen as “wrong”, like giving cigarettes to a minor, but not monstrous. The paedophile bogeyman is the heir to the male homosexual bogeyman.
The MBL movement has been modelled on the gay lib movement, and to some extent, “classical” GL organisations have been following the same model.Thus many GLers, who do not find themselves inspired by gay-style politics, will shun these “classical” organisations, so you see many sites devoted to little girls with absolutely no link with the traditional “CL movement”; they consider themselves as worshipping girls and don’t care about little boys or the gender of fellow worshippers or any type of sexual minority movement.
Finally, the arguments given by several about the “evolutionary advantage” of MBL could as well apply to MGL, WBL and WGL, it is just the advantage of an adult mentoring a youth.
None of us consider themselves “normal” even if one of us afirm that is normal to being attracted to teen girls, here sexuality with adult women is bombarded 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, the fact of being a heterosexual man and not being attracted to FULLY developed adult women is considered a mental illness and all will flee from you.
In the rest of the known world, the word ‘pedophilia’ is used for anything sexual with a ‘child’ under 18 years. Berlusconi was accused of “pedophilia” and is a “pedophile” for allegedly having sex with a 17-year-old prostitute, it was a pedophile scandal. All disgusting men who have disgusting sex with adult women demand punishment for sex with a 17-years old. My country is not a English-speaking one.
Here where I live, going out with a girl of 13 is the same as the rape of a 5 year old girl, it is not a joke or a game, it is called and considered pedophilia (aka subhuman that should receive execution, not an wrong type of child love), would be considered and presented on national TV as a very serious case of child sexual abuse (the greatest committing crime, even among the human slag in prison) and all society will demand to he be punished with almost the same punishment as a brutal rapist of women or children.
So no, it looks equivalent to raping a 5 year old girl, you’re considered scum. What is equivalent to that is a man of 50 interested in girls of 20. The other is a disgusting rapist.
Here to a guy for dating girls 16 and 17 is named a child molester and people wanted to beaten or burn he alive.
And I do not think you’re lying, you’re just very far from reality, but very far away.
At best, sex with underage girls is seen as something of cavermans and backward and uncivilized people, like gypsies who marry 12-year-old girls, and are officially, socially and religiously designating their eradication as the leprosy or slavery, it is basically considered a ‘shame’ that this exists and is practiced.
The only legal and socially acceptable in modern humans is sex between fully legal adults.Full stop. if 17 years old can able to consent then would be made legal adults by society, minor is word for INCAPABLE CHILD, in monarchies regencies and to fuck in a bed here and now, you understand?
And I just wrote this to clarify it once, people ignore me just to see “order” in the name and see a new hitler, I will not waste any more time in that.
I would add, Order, that at least in America (I’m not sure to what degree this may be the case outside of the USA), the stigma against age disparate relationships continues well beyond the legal age barrier. Hebephiles like myself that are and want to remain law-abiding who seek out romantic relationships with much younger people (women, in my case) of legal age–say, 18-mid-20s–as a legal alternative are met with heavy social opposition. Because this enrages older women and makes them more self-conscious about having less physical attractiveness and more likely to have “baggage” (e.g., older children; the emotional jadedness that can come from a divorce or many failed relationships) than younger women, and because society as a whole is just simply uncomfortable with it, extremely negative motives are ascribed to men who date much younger women, and a plethora of mental issues are attributed to female mesophiles or gerontophiles who date much older men; or even non-mesophiles or non-gerontophiles who may unexpectedly fall in love with a much older man.
In fact, younger adults are often considered older “children” even when they are no longer saddled with the legal designation. I once had an older woman friend (late 30s) who was adamant with me that 18-21-year-old women were still children, and that older men finding them attractive–let alone dating them–was as “abhorrent” as doing the same with a girl who was legally underage. She even expressed extreme dismay after having witnessed men in their late 30s and 40s “ogle” her 18-year-old daughter. The fact that issues with her advancing age had much to do with this were very evident, as she once told me she would never have a boyfriend again (who would be in her own age group) until both of her teen daughters (one of whom was of legal age, as I noted) had moved out of her house. And she often considered her advancing age to be a major factor in her inability to find a boyfriend. I’m not sure to what degree that was a major factor, however, since there are many people of all ages who find older women attracted (I am simply not among their number).
In fact, this type of prejudice is so common and accepted in America that several prominent dating sites that operate here–all of whom only cater to clients who are 18 years and up–have strict policies where they do not allow male registrants to send messages to any woman registrant who is more than 10 years younger. They insist this is justified because a 45-year-old man cannot possibly have a “good reason” for messaging a 20-year-old woman, and therefore must only be looking for “one thing.” This is a flagrant case of paternalism towards people of legal adult age that has been lauded much more often than it has been criticized, and it’s fully legal and acceptable.
You will find the oriental dating sites that the women on there are much less fussy. Sometimes they will go right up to 99!! Many are obviously just after a better life (can’t blame them for that) and some will see an old guy hopefully with money a quick investment; Soon they are dead and the women are $$$$$ in.
“penis and testicles is often a “deal-breaker”
This is anecdotal again D but I think the level of pubic hair would play a large part here. I have a certain Greek Vase in mind, I’m sure everybody here know the one I mean.
Tom, your new blogroll entry, “Greek Love Through the Ages”… Is it a precursor of the new blogpost you, as far as I remember, once promised – one about Ancient Greek paederasty, written by a professional scholar as guest-blogger? I would be glad if it is so!
No, it is nothing to do with the long-promised article. I have started the interview with the professor in question, which is being conducted in a series of email exchanges. However, progress is slow, with long interruptions when the prof is too busy. I hope we’ll get the job finished one day, but don’t hold your breath!
Peter Hooper made a rational, well-thought analysis of the current political situation, which is worth reading and worth commenting:
https://takearisknz.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/loosening-grip-a-breath-of-air/
I would like people here to pay Peter a visit and express an opinion on his good work! His return to active blogging is an event that deserve our positive attention.
Yes! I am very pleased to see Peter’s return to active posting! Now if only we can get Cart O’Graph to do the same. That guy is missed more than he could ever imagine that he is.
I am teen boy who love chasing older men/pedophiles. I had a few sexcapades online (sending dirty pictures and having sexual talks), until I met a man who lived about half an hour away. We had a brief ‘relationship’, he promised to love me and leave his family so we could live together, he also showed me pre-teen hardcore material on his computer which i found interesting. This was when I was about 14-15. The man I had a ‘relationship’ with is now in jail as far as I know :'(
The reasons i started seeking out pedophiles were thus:
I felt very unattractive normally, and felt I would never be able to get a partner of my own age, because I was so ugly. I knew there were people out there who would find me attractive simply because I was so young, and I pursued them
I wanted to be a little boy again, some part of me still FEELS like a child, and what better way to confirm I’m ‘just a little boy’ than find somebody who is attracted to children to doink me? I’m uncertain if this developed around them or it was there before, but I was/am attracted to children myself: having 100 different guys tell me how ‘cute’ I am based on that was really nice for somebody with low self-esteem. Plus I could be honest about my attraction with no judgement (that was 100% a good thing!)?
I don’t like being quick to mistrust or come off like a paranoid putz, but I would advise everyone here to be wary of this poster. I can’t say for a fact he isn’t authentic, but considering the illegal things he gleefully talks about, my radar keeps screaming “cop”, “vigilante”, or “troll.” I know this isn’t nice to say, and I would hate to alienate anyone who is authentic, but I think this needed to be said even at the risk of both. Also, I’m not naive enough to believe that all younger people who break the law do so because they are “naive,” which is a young person stereotype that those trying to entrap us would be quick to try playing into.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/opinion/sunday/it-was-forced-on-me-child-marriage-in-the-us.html
Does this mean an adult man could marry an 11-year-old boy in states where gay marriage is legal?
Get Outlook for iOS ________________________________
“Thousands of minors each year”? That article reeks of sensationalistic and emotionalistic nonsense, much like the uber-inflated “stats” once used to claim “thousands” of kids in the U.S. were being subjected to sexual abuse, torture, and ritual sacrifice in the nation’s daycare system; or that “thousands” of kids in the U.S.–and across the planet–are being forced into sexual servitude by sex traffickers; or– take your pick of a host of similar utterly bogus claims utilized by the media and governments to incite moral panics and to justify a slew of witch hunts and draconian laws. Let’s see how far this newest addition to the panic-mongering craze goes before it’s finally and invariably exposed by a few courageous journalists amidst the numerous other journalists and moral crusaders with blogs who spread the evil gospel.
Quite right, Dissident! Nicholas Kristof is a moral entrepreneur who has made his name with exaggerated and even spurious stories about sex trafficking. He has been debunked by Laura Agustin as a neo-colonialist and paternalist white bourgeois man who wants to “save” poor Third World women, see her blog http://www.lauraagustin.com/ where you can make a search on “Kristof”.
Bailey et al. (2016) (An Internet Study of Men Sexually Attracted to Children: Sexual Attraction Patterns. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125 (7) 976–988.) asked 1.189 “pedophiles” and “hebephiles” in the internet about their age of attraction. Girls and boys were mostly attractive with 12 years. But in the real world/for all men all studies show that girls are much more attractive with 15/16/17 years than with 12 years. This example shows that results from surveys with “pedophiles” and “hebephiles” are not representative for all men. That is my first main critique about that article. These studies with “pedophiles” and “hebephiles” are no proof that men of today desire younger boys. And the second main critique is that there is no detailed analysis that compares the age of puberty of boys in ancient Greece and in Florence with the age of puberty of boys today. And even if this analysis would show that puberty happens four years earlier today it would still be unclear how many years the age of attraction of “normal” men for boys went down. Because it is unclear how different factors like Tanner stage, height, stigmatization of desires, … influence the peak age of attraction.
Take it easy – they themselves admit that psychology is abnormal…
Imagine this. You are attracted to 16 years old girls, like you are now (emotionally and sexually), but they do not exist. They existed but they don’t know your existence. That means, not only do you know there will never be any possibility, of you having sex with one, but there;s not even a possibility of you ever seeing one in real life. Everyone else, however, except for a very few, are not attracted to 16 years old girls, they are attracted to something else entirely. So, in other words, you will never find any porn anywhere on the internet, only non-sexual pictures of 16 years old girls. Everyone you have told about your attraction to 16 years old think it’s disgusting. To relieve yourself, you get off on the non-sexual pictures of 16 years old, knowing it will never get any better. That’s what life is like to me. I am a degree 6 pedosexual, sexually and emotionally attracted to 1 month infants and nothing else. 16 years old girls don’t even do it for me. I am cursed
This is a powerful analogy, but why do you say ‘ but there’s not even a possibility of you ever seeing one in real life.’ You can SEE babies, can’t you?
It looks like Magnitude finally made a video about me. Now I am going to troll his ass twice as hard for helping to get the Heart Progress G+ group shut down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfl7YwG8WSg
Meanwhile, the main website of the Heart Progress community just got itself suspended (apparently, by the HostGator company which hosted it):
http://nickmartinezofficial.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
A practical lesson for the ones who praised Internet censorship: as I (and Christian) said, they would be – and actually were, as we see now – the first victims of it.
Now their Tumblr blog (one with a pro-Sharia image I mentioned in my another comment here) is also gone.
Seems these guys have really made a lot of enemies, who kept reporting them and pressing responsible admins to suspend them until all of their sites are closed.
Is it an end? All what is left of them now is a YouTube channel with a pair of videos:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-MywT2h3tm2ExeOFOKVhcw
Now hey are on Seen.Life, an imitation of Facebook: https://seen.life/groups/viewgroup/8182-heart-progress
Thanks for the link.
That’s because The HoneyBee and her group of anti-pedos reported it to Host Gator. Honestly, HP couldn’t have picked a worse host. Their TOS is awful.
There is a scientifically verifiable reason why men tend to be attracted to 12 year old boys. It is simply that boys that age – physically, personally and spiritually – are the most beautiful entities in the world. As an example, consider a 12 year old choir boy singing a piece of music by Handle or Bach. Ample data is available here: https://youtu.be/39Ww50hZoD0 It’s objective. There is no way around it.
I rest my case.
Scientifically verifiable??? I grant you that 12-y-o boys seem more beautiful than grown men or toddlers, but ” physically, personally and spiritually, the most beautiful entities in the world” are 11-y-o girls! Personal taste, nothing “scientifically verifiable” ;o)
Setting aside my joking around about what is scientifically verifiable, it is interesting how often that age shows up as somehow special. As Edmund’s post suggests, it is not so much the age as the stage. We are talking about the stage of transition from childhood to adulthood. The cocoon stage when the caterpillar, by some magic, transforms itself into a butterfly. It is a stage of great vulnerability. No sooner does a boy or a girl become really good at being a boy or a girl, than the rug is pulled out from under him or her. “No, you cannot remain at that stage,” the child is told. The message is delivered by biology. You must transition into an “adult.” A dult. Some are more enthusiastic than others at the prospects of becoming a dult. So they look around at all the dults in their vicinity with a question in their minds. “Would you want to become something like any of those?” The answer for some is, “No.” In any case, it is an age fraught with possibilities, uncertainties, dramas, and tragedies.
Actually I also find girls at that stage especially beautiful. But with boys there is an emotional identification with them that causes me to be pulled more in their direction.
Thanx Edmund. for that very interesting blog.
“that the many polls of this sort conducted in the past had consistently shown 11-12 as the most preferred age, in other words towards the end of Tanner stage two of pubescence.”
That age 11 – 12 was also the peak age in a study about the age of attraction of homosexual “pedophiles” and “hebephiles” by Frits Bernard (see page 57 of Bernard (2001): Paedophilia: a factual report. https://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/bernard/factual.pdf).
According to several studies there are about 3 or 4 times more “hebephiles” than “pedophiles”, so while we are always talking about “pedophilia”/”pedophiles”, the quantitative much more important topic is “hebephilia”/”hebephiles”.
By the way 11-12 is not the end of stage zwo, but exactly the age of boys in Tanner stage two of genital development of boys.
From my point of view the age that is most attractive for boylovers in a study says more about the group that was studied than about the most attractive age of boys for men. If you do such a study with men from Boychat you get different results than when you do such a survey with “normal” men on the street. Generally more men prefer pubertal rather than prepubertal boys. While the most attractive age of boys at boychat may be 11 or 12 years, the most attractive age of boys for “normal” men asked in the streets would maybe be 14 years old (if they would answer honestly and if they would feel their stigmatized attraction) and the most attractive age of boys for homosexual men would maybe be 17/18 years. So I am very skeptical if there really is such a strong decline of the age of boys most attractive for men as it is described here (15 to 11/12 years). I would rather guess that those with a preference for 14/15 year olds rather rarely visit online-forums of “pedophiles” and “hebephiles”.
Yes in the last 150 years the age of puberty of boys was reduced maybe by 3 years. But I would speculate that it is a normal thing in the history in the last 10.000 years that the age of puberty goes up and down.
“the age of puberty of boys was reduced”
actually, puberty is trending back toward the biological norm for the human species. it has been considerably delayed in agricultural societies due to nutritional constraints that accompany large scale social organization. contrary to intuition, agriculture does not improved nutrition or reduce the workload of the wider population in agricultural societies. quite the opposite in fact.
in contrast, post-industrial societies have a very high energy diet which is quickly converted to steroids (fats) that trigger and accelerate sexual maturation.
An interesting post. You are right that the agricultural (neolithic) revolution seemed to have had a detrimental effect of health, and that certainly might have effected the average age of puberty. You may also be right about the industrial revolution, but I am not yet convinced. Here is an article shared with me by Edmund: http://tinyurl.com/yc6myo5p
The results reviewed here and less than straightforward with regard to the correlation of earlier puberty with improved nutrition.
Would be interested in any data you have related to this phenomenon.
Yes, puberty is a complex phenomenon, and I doubt it works as simple as 14 is new 18. I have looked at some old photos of boys and they all looked the age they would now. And the World War 1 photos of officers in their late teens and very early twenties always struck me as looking more advanced for their age, mainly because of their moustaches.
I think Edmund is ignoring an elephant in the room: gays! As someone who is still drawn to 14/15 yo boys , it strikes me that most “boylovers ” on forums are indeed losers who go about sniffing little boys underwear, and hanging around the big float region of swimming pools. Where are the real boylovers? Answer is that gays are boylovers. This explains why there are none really left anymore. Funny enough, about a week ago on boychat, someone was saying this.
What is the relationship between boylovers and gays ? There is plenty of evidence that in their youth disgusting gays like Dan Savage sought out boys in San Francisco. Also, Harvey Sicko Milk. I could go on. This recent mayor of Seattle. So, basically, gays wish they could be with real boys but can only get away with twinks. None of this pleases me, of course, and as a matter of fact it makes me sick.
I find your post a bit confusing. To respond to your first paragraph, while there have always been early bloomers and late bloomers, that the average age of puberty over the last couple of centuries has been lowering, is an established fact. Edmund is not mistaken here. The only thing that may be complex is why. As far as I can tell that has not been clearly established.
As to your reference to BLs who go about “sniffing boy’s underwear,” (and similar offensive comments) I am not sure what point you are making, except that you find BLs who are attracted to younger boys disgusting. Also you seem to find gays disgusting. Perhaps you are making some point that I am missing. Are you affirming that you are a normal guy (being attracted to older boys) and that people like me are not (as we are attracted to pubescent boys)? If you are saying that certain attractions are “normal” and others are not, try to clarify what grounds you have for such an assertion. Your present tone invites ad hominum arguments – which I think we should avoid on this forum. Divergent opinions should certainly be welcome here, but not personal attacks.
Hold your horses, José! Now, if you choose to waste your vote on Jill Stein, that’s not my fault, really. I’ll say this much and this much only, because Barron’s late for something and Melania’s on my ass again: it is a range of boys I like, but if some Mexican were to hold a gun to my head I would say fourteen and fifteen is usually the peak beauty/handsomeness of white boys! There you have it. Nothing against your type of person.
What I am saying is that the boylovers who looked like Cary Grant and offered boys lifts and volunteered with boys’ trips are a thing of the past. I really wished it weren’t true that gays were boylovers of the past, but there we go.
When I said that puberty is a complex thing, I mean’t the effects of it on the human body. That’s what I’m saying. So, Bach’s seventeen year olds probably didn’t just look like our thirteen year olds. It’s a difficult thing.
“To respond to your first paragraph, while there have always been early bloomers and late bloomers, that the average age of puberty over the last couple of centuries has been lowering, is an established fact. Edmund is not mistaken here.”
Wait a moment. We do know that the age of puberty went down in the last maybe 200 years in lots of countries for several years, for example in Germany. But: The statistic from Rocke was for the years 1478 bis 1502 in Florence. Are there any differences in the age of puberty of boys in Florence in the years 1500 to 2017? And if so how big is this difference really? And how much is the difference of the age of puberty of boys in Athen 400 b. c. and of boys in Athen today? I am missing comparisons of these ages.
Downvoted. You’re exactly what’s wrong with boylove. Instead of posting satire, mocking gayness and being clever and original, you continue to post lame phrases and beat to glue anything that was even remotely funny, all under the guise that you want to show what’s wrong with gayness. You don’t care about gayness. You belong to the system that this blog was made to mock. You seek karma. You seek to be a power-user, a well-known name in a sea of perpetual anonymity. The higher your karma-count, the more you get off on it. You are smug and self-satisfying. You are the problem. There should be a “delete” button below your posts. Start clicking them after you post and you’ll find that blog starts to improve.
Wow, Clive Martin! What a neatly expressed, well-worded piece for this area of polemic that Edmund has created. Apart from a couple of small grammatical errors, that is…
You defend gays? Then consider this: that some act of divine intervention causes the universal age of consent to be lowered to 14. What then for those elderly bed-fellows — a few of whom would soon be bed-less?
Yes, the word I am hinting at here, is hypocrisy and this h-word has shored up the fanatically moralistic stand that ‘gays’ have been using against boy-lovers for a long time, now.
Honestly, search your soul and wonder what would happen in the gay world if the AOC were to be 14, or even (gasp), 12? I have a feeling that more than a few rats would find a new ship to set sail in…
M T-W.
“You belong to the system that this blog was made to mock.”
Speak for yourself, Clive – mockery of anyone and anything never was the Tom’s intent; “mockery is cruel”, as he had once said. His goal is critique, sometimes humorous and ironic, yet still intellectual and erudite, open-minded and debate-encouraging.
He is not, like you, posting nonsensical SJW-styled diatribes, such as demands to deprive your opponents of their freedom of speech. Haven’t it still dawned on you that Paedo-sphere would be the first victim of the Internet censorship, if it ever installed (which I hope won’t happen)? That your desire to provide the ruling oppressors with a gagging-tool which will be inevitably used against you?
Or take your images in support of Sharia Law-regulated child marriage in a secular country on you Tumblr blog:
https://heart-progressabovethehate.tumblr.com/image/160937965846
Don’t you think that supporting consensual child-adult sexuality is NOT the same as approving oppressive subjugation of a female child to her adult husband which she, most likely, never has chosen, and whom she cannot leave when she wants? What we should support is egalitarian, voluntary sexual friendships, sometimes (combined with) mentorships and tutorships, NOT depriving young girls of their childhood – which should be a period of freedom and exploration (including sexual freedom and exploration), not compulsory, irreversible social bondages like child marriage.
Tom’s scholarly rigour, literary skill, openness for discussion and dedication to freedom and equality for everyone (not reverse hierarchy and political repression!) is what should be your example, not some ethically questionable and logically incoherent SJW slogans.
Clive, I hope for you that Eivind Berge’s website is not copyrighted…
Ah Eivind Berge… Do you like to go through blogs that defend rape?
http://eivindberge.blogspot.com.es/2009/05/rape-is-equality.html
The Clive Martin whom I know on Google+ denies being the author of this comment. This is the work of a troll, again. Indeed, reading that comment, in my view the style did not match the one of Clive’s texts,in particular the gibberish about karma; so I wanted to check with him.
Tom: you have to check if the email given with the comment is genuine.
“the most attractive age of boys for “normal” men asked in the streets would maybe be 14 years old”
Where did you get this priceless information? Most writers on the subject that I have come across have assumed that the man in the street would find it easier to see younger boys as attractive due to their softer skins, finer bones, unbroken voices and other similarities to females.
“Where did you get this priceless information?”
No need to react cynical Edmund. I wrote “maybe” because this was speculation. There are no studies who show the truth in this issue for sure. I have an idea in mind someday to let “normal” males judge the sexual attractiveness of pictures of males and females of different ages in a special way that would probably show which age they really are most attracted to. The results could be very interesting, I would not be surprised if 40 % of heterosexual men have a preference for minors. But unless we don´t have such studies we don´t know for sure.
We have some phallometric studies, especially the study of Blanchard (2011): Misdiagnoses of Pedohebephilia Using Victim Count: A Reply to Wollert and Cramer (2011). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40 (6) 1081–1088. In this study with “sexual offenders” the heterosexual “teleiophiles”/”hebephiles”/”pedophiles” were more sexually aroused by prepubertal males (5/8 to 11 years old, Tanner stage 1) than by pubertal males (12 to 14 years old, Tanner stage 3,83). These men were much more sexually aroused by prepubertal females than by prepubertal or pubertal males.
Even for mere speculation, it is good to have some grounds. Your assertion seems quite startling without giving any.
I don’t see any reason why the boys who come nearest to attracting the man in the street today (whether or not he has any conscious attraction to boys) and those who really did attract the man in the street in ancient Athens or Renaissance Florence should be at different stages of physical development. Do you? If so, why?
Let’s compare ancient Athen and today. Is the age of puberty of the boys starting earlier today and if so how much? I am no expert in that specific topic and you did not cover that aspect in your article. From the little that I know it is not even sure if the age of puberty of the boys starts earlier today. I see no evidence that puberty starts 3 or 4 years earlier today. Maybe you can update us on this topic.
Are boys today earlier in puberty than boys from Renaissance Florence? If so how many months or years? Is it possible at all to give that information? I don´t know.
We do know a lot about the development of puberty in the last about 200 years. In those years puberty went down several years. But in your article you compare different times of history.
Another aspect: 12-year-old girls are today typically in Tanner stage 4 of breast development. But there is little evidence that most men are strongly attracted by 12-year-old girls. Stage of development is important, but it is not everything. Another aspect is height. The stigmatization of sexual attraction for specific groups is another factor. There is little or no research how much such aspects influence sexual attraction.
11- to 12 -year-old boys of today are in Tanner stage 2 and 3 of genital development. 14-year-old boys of today are in Tanner stage 4 of genital development. I would not be surprised if “normal” men generally are more sexual aroused and attracted by more genital development than by less genital development if these age ranges would be compared.
Your entire line of argument seems to be assuming that in so far as what you call “normal” men are attracted to boys at all, their taste is likely to differ from those of the men you put in the boxes of “pedophile” and “hebephile.” Why should it? You haven’t given a single reason for that. Why suppose there is any difference between “normals” and “abnormals” apart from “normals” having suppressed their desire for boys or never awoken to it?
The age of females to which men are usually attracted has nothing whatsoever to do with the age of boys. As Rind explains, the evolutionary foundation for attraction to boys is their needs during pubescence. The main evolutionary foundation for attraction to females is fertility, which starts well after the beginning of pubescence and extends into middle age.
Of course we don’t know the precise ages of stages of puberty for boys at any period before the last century. We just have countless indications of it being lower and none at all of it ever being similar to today or higher. I went into it only briefly here, though I thought enough, because it has already been discussed exhaustively here three years ago.
Partly you misunderstand me. Things like “peophilia”, “hebephilia”, “greek love”, …are mental constructs that don´t exist in the reality. In the reality there are only individuals who desire in an individual way. If one does a survey with 100 “normal” men from the street (some of them will be “pedophiles” and “hebephiles” of course) the most attractive age of girls/women would be maybe 18 years. Studies with heterosexual minor-attracted-men from internet-forums show that those men mostly desire about 12-year-old girls. But these men are not representative for all men. So generally groups of minor-attracted-persons in the internet are not representative for the whole society. You reported several studies/impressions with the result that 11- to 12-year-old boys were mostly desired by homosexual minor-attracted men. I believe that the main reason for these results are the special and unrepresentative groups that were surveyed. There are reasons why people are in the internet or in the real world.
“Of course we don’t know the precise ages of stages of puberty for boys at any period before the last century. We just have countless indications of it being lower and none at all of it ever being similar to today or higher. I went into it only briefly here, though I thought enough, because it has already been discussed exhaustively here three years ago.”
I read in the article and in the comments not one single sentence from you if the age of puberty of boys was 1500 lower/higher/the same and did not get one link or one article-title to that topic from you. I read here not one single sentence from you if age of puberty was 400 b. c. lower/higher/the same and did not get one link or one article-title to that topic. Even after asking for it. I really respect your big knowledge about history Edmund but you also have a tendency to arrogance and this does not help you to find the truth in this issue. It started with you first and cynical sentence “Where did you get this priceless information?”. Maybe it would have been better not to react to such primitive behavior to avoid problems. But my interest in that topic was too strong. Also from a non-personal and scientific point of view this comparison of the ages of puberty of boys is simply missing in your article. If you would have tried to publish your article in an peer-reviewed magazine I am 100% sure people would have told you that.
PAX, for heaven’s sake, pax!
I once showed a friend a photograph of a boy and he was underwhelmed. I was rather hurt. I thought that it was a fine photo and that the boy was beautiful.
“Oh, it’s not the photo, but his freckles put me off” he hastened to say…
Would it matter a DAMN if the boy had been 14, 12 or 10?
No, the freckles were the things that — for that sovereign individual — spoilt the picture.
Why? God knows! Does anyone — and does all this talk of numbers, boxes, classifications — mean anything really important?
Edmund, your original premise that boy-love exists in a stage, not an age is so clearly correct that I think you should simply walk away with a smile on your face!
M T-W.
Thanks very much. I agree with everything you say. Incidentally, if Tom doesn’t mind me using this golden opportunity to raise a different subject, is there any news of your thesis on Shakespearean boy actors? You once kindly said you would let me see it, and I’ve been longing to.
Dear Edmund,
I’d love to send it, but I don’t know where to send it to!
Addresses being security problems, these days…
It is too huge to send in an email, and horribly wordy because I had to disguise my intent, as you will see. Please contact my email (mtearewilliams@gmail.com)?
Love and best! Mike.
If boys are attractive to men in so far that they are similar to
females, it stands to reason age of the female matters.
Further, reproductive value is of great importance to understanding hebephilia as a natural phenomenon, as hebephiles trades fertility for reproductive value. More speculatively, it also goes some way to explaining pedophilia as something other than “lust”, which you favored.
Lament of a Choir Boy
Once I could sing.
My voice would ring
As clear as bells.
But now it is quaking
It no longer swells —
can no longer fly
in the treble sky —
Because it is breaking
Lighthearted though your contribution is jedson303, sound is as accurate a way of measuring a young male person’s attractiveness, without resorting to those notoriously inaccurate numbers. 10, 11, 12…
Thus Filip’s insistence on using reference to ‘Tanner stage two’ is called into question when really the primary cause of the feelings of love for the young loved-one is appearance, or the sound of an unbroken voice? Or that small, neat smoothness? Alright, I’m peaking for myself alone, here, but the principle holds good, regardless of the chronological age of the young person. Or the personal preferences of the older person.
My point is that my boarding school in the 1950s possessed an outstanding soprano chorister who was fully fifteen years old. By the same token, my first serious love affair was with a boy, who at 13, was only a few weeks younger than myself, but still had not a single outward sign of puberty on his body; while I towered fully a head and a half above him. To add interest to this disparity, B was definitely my intellectual superior, though I could pick him up with one hand…
Forget numbers as yardsticks. Appearance, sound, physical dimensions are far more accurate. Truly, boy-love is driven and defined as an attraction to a ‘stage, not an age’.
M T-W.
ps: thanks Edmund for this interesting blog and the link to your web page.
do you think paedophilia is somehow less worthy than paederasty? You are at pains to make the distinction, and fair enough, but is there really no overlap. I find that impossible to accept.
personally, as a girl lover attracted to relatively young children, i’ve been sensitized to the suggestion of a moral hierarchy based on aoa. sure, sex with a four year old girl is more problematic than sex with a twelve year old boy, but its all relative isn’t it. what do we even mean by ‘sex’?
the important things are care and respect for, not age and gender of the people we’re attracted to.
again, thx for the fascinating articles!
“Less worthy” are certainly not words I would choose. I write about pederasty from my knowledge and understanding of it. I don’t know nearly enough about paedophilia to sit in judgment on it or even write about it.
I don’t want to be evasive though, so I will say I think paedophila is generally harder to defend. Where it is concerned, the usual objections such as the possibility of the child being manipulated or deceived are stronger. I think it also lacks some of the positive arguments that can be made for pederasty. I quite believe what I am told here that little children can find both sex and the relationship that goes with it pleasurable, but to me that’s not the same as needing sex, which I think the pubescent boy very much does, so much so that he has to get it through masturbation when, as usual nowadays, he is deprived of an emotionally and physically more rewarding outlet. Also, I agree with Rind that it is our evolutionary heritage to tend to be attracted to pubescents because that it is the stage at which children tend to benefit most from intimacy with a loved adult. However, I am not denying younger children may benefit.
Everything should depend on the child’s individual circumstances. Nuance over this is what society today is sadly lacking. It is also absurd in its putting people in boxes, as of course there are overlaps between sexualities.
“I will say I find paedophilia is generally harder to defend”.
May I gently suggest that no-one tries to defend something that simply IS? And always has been.
Society will continue — tragically — to put “people in boxes” and using numbers as the main means of labelling those boxes, whatever WE say?
But never despair and thank you again for your brave article!
M T-W.
what does it matter how age maps to puberty?
what matters is that some of us are more or less attracted to children, some to youths, some to adults of whatever gender. What matters for us all is that we express our love with grace and humility and harm no one, least of all the beloved.
Congratulations Edmund, on a well written exposition of the principle that chronological age is NOT the most important consideration in the heart of anyone who loves boys, or girls, for that matter. Which is why the age of of consent laws are such a complete nonsense?
Why can we not get it into our heads that the external physical effects of puberty are happening earlier and earlier? Or even, in any class of modern 12-year-olds, some will be well into puberty, and others smoothly not?
“Or even, in any class of modern 12-year-olds, some will be well into puberty, and others smoothly not?”
It is a myth that “hebephiles” desire typically 11- to 14-year olds because especially girls in the Tanner stages 2 and 3 are typically younger. Let´s have a look at the study from Susman et al. (2010): Longitudinal Development of Secondary Sexual Characteristics in Girls and Boys Between Ages 9½ and 15½ Years. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 164 (2) 166-173. In this study from the USA the values for reaching the Breast-stages are B2 9,8 years, B3 11,3, B4 12,7 and B5 14,2. The girls of this study were born about 27 years ago and puberty starts earlier and earlier. If you subtract about 0,3 years of the values just given you probably have the values of the girls who enter puberty now.
Boys reach the beginning of puberty later than girls if Tanner stage 2 is the criteria for the beginning of puberty. But development of testes is probably the better criteria for the beginning of puberty and then boys enter puberty at about the same age as girls.
Just a little while ago you Tom gave “ephebophilia” the age range 15 to 25 years (see https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2016/09/08/the-seven-ages-of-sexual-attractiveness/). But girls typically enter Tanner stage 4 with 12 years and not with 15 years so I would be very interested what age range you Tom will give “ephebophilia” now?
It seems there really is not one single study from just one “developed country” where girls enter Tanner-stage 4 with 15 years. It is somehow funny how we all believed this fake science just because Blanchard/Seto/Cantor gave us these wrong values.
>…girls typically enter Tanner stage 4 with 12 years and not with 15 years
If this is correct then it would indeed have implications for the age for ephebophilia, especially if boys were also seen to reach Tanner 4 before 15.
But where is your information coming from? I’d have thought 13-14 is more usual for Tanner 4 in girls, not 12.
According to Wikipedia, “90% of all US girls are menstruating by 13.75 years of age, with a median age of 12.43 years.”
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menarche#Changes_in_time_of_average_age]
The information on my files in relation to changing age of puberty tends to talk in terms of menarche rather than Tanner stages.
It is the result of the metaanalysis I did in the last months about the age of minors in the Tanner-stages. One has to look only at rather new Tanner-studies (no studies from the 70is or so) and only at Tanner-studies who look for the age at the beginning of the Tanner-stages (mean/median values of those in a Tanner-stage are misleading because Tanner-stages last a long time). With big advance most of these studies have the result that girls enter Tanner-stage 4 of breast development with 12 years (5 studies with 11 years, 9 studies with 12 years, 2 studies with 13 years, 2 studies with 14 years, 2 studies with 15 years). Don´t know when the 63-pages of my article about this study will be translated into English and published (which is difficult because the article describes pedophobia and not “pedophilia” as a mental disorder) but anyway these are the results. Boys enter Tanner-stage 4 of Genital development at the end of 13 years.
“According to Wikipedia, “90% of all US girls are menstruating by 13.75 years of age, with a median age of 12.43 years.””
Menarche and entry into Tanner-stage 4 of breast development typically happen about at the same time and you have to look at the median age in this sentence (12,43 years).
>It is the result of the metaanalysis I did in the last months about the age of minors in the Tanner-stages.
I wondered whether it might be. Congratulations on completing this very valuable research.
I seem to recall reading that 1.) menstruation is rare before Tanner stage 3, 2.) about 2/3 of girls are at Tanner stage 4 when they start menstruating, which would obviously leave 1/3 who aren’t. Has your research borne this out?
But maybe you’re tired of thinking and writing about it just now! I look forward to seeing your paper when it’s published.